Valerie Jarrett Addresses the IOC

Obama backs Chicago 2016 Olympic bid

On the Scene in Washington D.C. – White House Interview

Glenn Beck-09-30-09-A

Glenn Beck-09-30-09-B

Glenn Beck-09-30-09-C

Michelle Malkin on Obama’s Olympics bid

Background Articles and Videos

Waiver Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order 13490

After consultation with the Counsel to the President, I hereby waive the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge of Ms. Valerie Jarrett with respect to her former relationship with Chicago 2016. I have determined that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver because Ms. Jarrett’s knowledge and expertise on the United States’ sole Olympic bid for 2016 make her an ideal person to lead Administration efforts in support ofthis bid. I understand that Ms. Jarrett will otherwise comply with the remainder of the pledge and with all preexisting government ethics rules.

Dated: April 2, 2009 Special Counsel to the President and Designated Agency Ethics Official

FRIDAY, MAY 1ST, 2009 AT 6:10 PM

Ethics Update

Posted by Jesse Lee

“…As he has done before in the spirit of transparency, Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, asked us to pass along this update on the President’s Executive Order on Ethics:Just a quick post to advise that we granted an authorization under Section 3 of the President’s Ethics Executive Order to Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett to lead the White House’s effort to support Chicago’s bid to secure the 2016 Olympics.The President promised during the campaign that staff would not work on contracts or regulations directly related to their former employers. We have captured that promise in Paragraph 2 of our revolving door rules, which applies to non-lobbyists. Valerie previously served as Vice Chair of Chicago 2016, the non-profit entity responsible for the Chicago bid. Although Chicago 2016 was not her “former employer” in traditional terms, the term “former employer” in the President’s Order encompasses entities that appointees served as directors or officers, as Valerie did here. (To be clear, Valerie was not a lobbyist for Chicago 2016, and this waiver has nothing to do with lobbying.)We decided that a waiver of Paragraph 2 was in the public interest in order to help bring the Olympics back to the United States. Valerie’s past experience with Chicago 2016 makes her ideal to work with the city and its bid committee to help win the Olympics for the U.S., with the many benefits that would bestow. In her time working with the City of Chicago on its bid, she developed knowledge about the process that will make her a powerful advocate and liaison. Although Valerie previously volunteered with Chicago 2016, she has no continuing financial relationship with them. Since the Administration already plans on vigorously supporting the United States’ sole 2016 Olympic bid, we felt that letting Valerie lead our efforts was strongly in the public interest. The authorization can be found here (pdf).

An illustrated guide: All the president’s Olympic cronies

By Michelle Malkin

“…My syndicated column today — reprinted below with added links, pics, and info — gives you a rundown of the Obama cronies inside and outside the White House who stand to gain the most from the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid.

Chicagoans of all political stripes who oppose massive government funding of Mayor Richard Daley’s pet project have inundated my email-box. Reader Will P. sums it all up by noting that the games would “protect the current corrupt structure” and paper over Chicago/Illinois’s myriad woes, including: “Governor after Governor going to jail. Pay to play schemes. Crumbling and outdated infrastructure. Deteriorating public housing. Failing, dumbing-down schools. Hospital cutbacks. Sanctuary city. Never-ending gang wars (outbursts every Spring requiring massive police presence, police outmanned at the Taste of Chicago, innocents shot in the crossfire weekly, current beating video out now). Cemetery scandal (bodies removed and graves resold)…Acorn, Bill Ayers, Rezko, Blago, Wright. Univ. of Illinois “clout” scandal. Illegal preferential city hiring. City inspectors on the take (Operation Crooked Code). Voter fraud. The unemployment rate. Taxes through the roof. Mayor Daley attempting to extend city taxes to the suburbs. All this, and more…”

FLOTUS: Chicago needs Olympics because American kids are fat; Plus: The Jarrett whitewash

By Michelle Malkin

We need all of our children to be exposed to the Olympic ideals that athletes from around the world represent, particularly this time in our nation’s history, where athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity. Funds dry up so it becomes harder for kids to engage in sports, to learn how to swim, to even ride a bike. When we’re seeing rates of childhood obesity increase, it is so important for us to raise up the platform of fitness and competition and fair play; to teach kids to cheer on the victors and empathize with those in defeat, but most importantly, to recognize that all the hard work that is required to do something special.

Chicago can’t keep its children safe, let alone fit. How about letting another international city foot the massive bill and instead exposing hometown children to Olympic ideals by securing their neighborhoods first so they have somewhere to swim or ride bikes without fearing for their lives? …”

Obamas using schoolkids as junior lobbyists for Olympics

By Michelle Malkin

Yes, they can. And yes, they did. The Obamas have wasted public schoolkids’ time as junior lobbyists for their Chicago cronies’ Olympics bid. More on that in a moment.

As a reminder: I noted last week that Obama had created a new “White House Olympics Office” earlier this summer. The White House has refused to disclose the budget and staffing of the office — but we do know that it is under the roof of the White House Office of Public Engagement, which is managed by chief Chicago Olympics bid cheerleader Valerie Jarrett.

On September 16, the White House Olympics Office and the Obamas hosted a special event and visit to two schools in the D.C. area to shill for the Chicago Olympics bid…under the guise of “service,” of course. Jarrett and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley joined the Obamas for the festivities: …”

Background Articles and Videos

“…She said what every single person was thinking at the Tea Party rallies and the Town Hall Meetings. …”

“…She was awesome, moved me to tears….”

“…That was an incredible cri du coeur. Susan speaks for so many of us. Every single day I hear so many people in my office and in my town saying precisely the same things, and with increasing passion. …”

Rush Gives Platform to ‘Susan From Glendale’ in Epic 21-Minute Call

“…This woman speaks for the vast majority of Americans that are tired of being repressed by the radical minority left. Washington is not listening and the MSM is not reporting. We will take this country back from the over spending socialists. …”

Who Rules America? (Part 1)

Who Rules America? (Part 2)

Who Rules America? (Part 3)

Who Rules America? (Part 4)

Who Rules America? (Part 5)

Who Rules America? (Part 6)

Who Rules America? (Part 7)

Who Rules America? (Part 8)

Who Rules America? (Part 9)

Background Articles and Videos

G. William Domhoff

“…George William (Bill) Domhoff (born August 6, 1936) is a Research Professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His first book, Who Rules America?, was a controversial 1960s bestseller which argued that the United States is dominated by an elite ownership class both politically and economically.[1]

He was born in Youngstown, Ohio, the son of George William and Helen S. (Cornet) Domhoff. He received a B.A. in Psychology at Duke University, a MA in psychology at Kent State University, and a Ph.D. in psychology at the University of Miami.

In the early 1960s, Domhoff served as an assistant professor of psychology at Los Angeles State College. In 1965, he became an assistant professor at the University of California, Cowell College, Santa Cruz, where he is now professor of psychology and sociology.

Domhoff is the author of Who Rules America? (1st ed. 1967, most recent edition 2009) and many other well-known books in sociology and power structure research, as well as Finding Meaning in Dreams (1996) and The Scientific Study of Dreams (2003). …”

There Are No Conspiracies

by G. William Domhoff

“…There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don’t fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don’t fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers. These kinds of claims go back many decades now, and it is always said that it is really going to happen this time, but it never does. Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials. Of course they want to make as much money as they can, and be elected by huge margins every time, and that can lead them to do many unsavory things, but nothing in the ballpark of creating a one-world government or suspending the constitution.

Second, the conspiratorial view assumes that the behind-the-scenes leaders are extremely clever and knowledgeable, whereas social science and historical research shows that leaders often make shortsighted or mistaken decisions due to the limits placed on their thinking by their social backgrounds and institutional roles. When these limits are exposed through stupid mistakes, such as the failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy Administration, then conspiratorial theorists assert that the leaders failed on purpose to fool ordinary people.

Third, the conspiratorial view places power in the hands of only a few dozen or so people, often guided by one strong leader, whereas sociologists who study power say that there is a leadership group of many thousands for a set of wealth-owning families that numbers several million. Furthermore, the sociological view shows that the groups or classes below the highest levels buy into the system in various ways and support it. For example, highly trained professionals in medicine, law, and academia have considerable control over their own lives, make a good living, and usually enjoy their work, so they go along with the system even though they do not have much political power. …”

Interview: G. William Domhoff
by Chip Berlet, September 2004

“…New Internationalist: Don’t you study how power elites conspire? How can someone tell the difference between conspiracism and criticism of the status quo based on power structure research?

Domhoff: I think I study how elites strive to develop consensus, which is through such publicly observable organizations as corporate boards and the policy-planning network, which can be studied in detail, and which are reported on in the media in at least a halfway accurate manner. I think this is the opposite of a small, secretive, illegitimate conspiracy because this large group called the power elite is known to the public, clearly states its aims (profit, profit, and more profit, and less government), publishes its policy suggestions, and is seen as legitimate by a great majority of the public.

I also study the way in which elites in the United States and other democracies have agreed for a few hundred years now to settle the issues where they can’t reach complete consensus, namely, through elections, which are also public and legitimate, and which can be observed by researchers in a fair amount of detail, including on the issue of campaign finance, and which are reported on fairly well in the media.

The interesting thing with elections, in terms of addressing the conspiracy kind of stuff, is that rival elites have in effect agreed not to get into all out violence and war with each other, although Americans elites did so only 144 years ago in the bloody Civil War. Political scientist John Higley talks of elites coming to “settlements” or “pacts” that lead to elections, but this is not through conspiring, historically speaking, but through sitting down to talk in frustration and exhaustion, usually after fighting each other to a draw over decades. …”

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-A

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-B

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-C

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-D

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-E

New media in particular blogs and videocasts are growing as are online versions of old media such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online.

Old media is in decline or stagnant:

“…While old media is still on top, the trends in the survey, which has been conducted each of the last three years, point to a familiar story: media consumption habits are quickly changing. That said, some forms of new media are performing much better than others. For example:

– Blogs are now used by 24% of Internet users, up from 13% in 2006

– Social networks are now used by 26% of Internet users, up from 17% in 2006

– Videocasts are now used by 11% of Internet users, up from 6% in 2006

Michael Ledeen Interview

Mullahs are Watching PJTV

Background Articles and Videos

We’ve Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years

The seizure of the U.S. embassy followed the failure of Carter administration talks with

By Michael Ledeen

“…The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.” …”

“…Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”

Mr. Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author, most recently, of “Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West,” out next month from St. Martin’s Press.

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.

By ELIOT A. COHEN

“…At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.

The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.”

Mr. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?

With Twitter’s help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.

“…A small point on the technological aspects of the Iranian situation. Some ask if the impact of the new technology is exaggerated. No. Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there. If they Twittered and liveblogged the French Revolution, it still would have been the French Revolution: “this aft 3pm @ the bastille.” It all still would have happened, perhaps with marginally greater support. Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don’t work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged.

The interesting question is what technology would have done after the Revolution, during the Terror. What would word of the demonic violence, the tumbrels and nonstop guillotines unleashed circa 1790-95 have done to French support for the Revolution, and world support? Would Thomas Jefferson have been able to continue his blithe indifference if reports of France grimly murdering France had been Twittered out each day?

The great question is what modern technology can do not in the short term so much as the long. It is not the friend of entrenched tyranny. Connected to which, it would be nice if the technologies of the future were not given babyish names. Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc., have come to be crucial and historically consequential tools, and yet to refer to them is to talk baby talk. In the future could inventors please keep the weight and dignity of history in mind? …”

Old Media

“… The old media or legacy media are traditional means of communication and expression that have existed since before the advent of the new medium of the Internet. Industries that are generally considered part of the old media are broadcast and cable television, radio, movie and music studios, newspapers, magazines, books and most print publications. Many of those industries are now less profitable than they used to be and this is has been attributed to the growth of the new media.

Old media, also known as traditional media, comprise art forms like music, dance, puppetry, street plays, theatres, fine art, folk-art and tribal art. Traditional media are used to spread awareness about social messages, social evils, bad practices that need to be stopped. In West Bengal, India, puppetry was used to create awareness about HIV and AIDS. …”

Making Old Media New Again

“….It’s make-or-break time for many newspapers. Denver and Seattle recently lost dailies, the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times are both in bankruptcy, and owners of the Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle threaten closure. One reader mourned the loss of her local newspaper in Connecticut by lamenting that she had gone from living in a city to living off just another exit on Interstate 95. As comedian Stephen Colbert put it last week, “The impending death of the newspaper industry: Where will they print the obituary?” …”

“…The recession is accelerating these trends, with advertising so soft even Web-only news operations, which don’t have the legacy costs of print, are now struggling to support journalism. …”

Twelver

“…Twelver or Imami Shī‘ism (Ithnā‘ashariyyah’, Arabic: اثنا عشرية‎) is the largest branch of Shī‘ī (Shi’a) Islam. An adherent of Twelver Shī‘ism is most commonly referred to as a Twelver, which is derived from their belief in twelve divinely ordained leaders, known as the Twelve Imāms. Approximately 85% of Shī‘a are Twelvers, representing the largest branch of the Shī‘a, and the term Shi’a Muslim as commonly used in English usually refers to Twelver Shī‘a Muslims only.

Twelvers share many tenets of Shī‘ism with related sects, such as the belief in Imāms, but the Ismā‘īlī and Zaydī Shī‘ī sects each believe in a different number of Imāms and for the most part, a different path of succession regarding the Imāmate. They also differ in the role and overall definition of an Imām.

The Twelver faith is predominantly found in Iran (90%), Azerbaijan (85%), Bahrain (80%), Iraq (65%), Lebanon (35%), and Kuwait (35%). It also forms a large minority in Pakistan (30%), and Saudi Arabia (10–15%).[1]

First Look – Project Natal – Bloomberg

Steven Spielberg and Xbox Project Natal

Xbox E3 2009: Project Natal

Xbox 360 Project NATAL – Official E3 First Look

Project Natal for XBOX 360

E3 2009: Project Natal Milo demo

E3 2009 Microsoft Press Conference Part 1

E3 2009 Microsoft Press Conference Part 2

Background Articles and Videos

Project Natal

“…Project Natal (pronounced [naˈtal], nah-tahl) is the code name for a “controller-free gaming and entertainment experience” by Microsoft for the Xbox 360 video game platform. Based on an add-on peripheral for the Xbox 360 console, Project Natal enables users to control and interact with the Xbox 360 without the need to touch a game controller through a natural user interface using gestures, spoken commands,[1] or presented objects and images. The project is aimed at broadening the Xbox 360’s audience beyond its typically hardcore base.[2] Project Natal was first announced on June 1, 2009 at E3 2009. Microsoft said that over a thousand software development kits began shipping to game developers that same day.[2]

Though Microsoft has not officially announced any price or release date projections for Project Natal,[2][3] it is expected to be released in late 2010.[4][5][6][7][8] Project Natal will reportedly also serve as the basis for a “new” Xbox 360.[fn 1]

“…Xbox 360 today announced widespread enthusiasm from the world’s leading video-game publishers for “Project Natal,” a whole new way to play — no controller required. Developers across the globe have embraced the technology and have begun work on titles that will deliver extraordinary entertainment experiences for everyone to enjoy. Coming just three months after “Project Natal” was unveiled at E3, the announcements at the Tokyo Game Show underscore the swift industry support for the revolutionary controller-free experiences being developed exclusively for Xbox 360, the premier games and entertainment system.

Among the elite publishers actively working on games for “Project Natal” are Activision Blizzard, Bethesda Softworks, CAPCOM, Disney Interactive, Electronic Arts, Konami, MTV Games, Namco Bandai, Sega, Square Enix, THQ Inc. and Ubisoft. Together, these publishers account for more than 70 percent of third-party software sales for this generation of console and most of the world’s most recognized video game franchises. …”

Can ‘Project Natal’ Dethrone Nintendo?

Xbox 360 Maker Microsoft Shakes Up The Video Game World With Its Full-Body Motion-Sensitive Controller

“…For those of you who have been waiting for some really big news to come out of the video game industry, Microsoft answered your call Monday with its innovative “Project Natal,” a hands-free motion-sensitive controller system.

Announced during Microsoft’s annual E3 press conference, Project Natal seems almost certainly to be the culmination of several years of work by an Israeli start-up called 3DV Systems, which Microsoft recently acquired.

The technology, as demonstrated in the video below, appears geared toward allowing users to control games, movies, and anything else on their Xbox system with their hands alone, and without touching any hardware.

Now, in what is clearly an attempt by the Xbox maker to significantly broaden the potential reach of the console and its Internet component, Xbox Live, Microsoft is betting that it can finally impress many of the millions of people who would never, ever consider themselves gamers but who somehow ended up with a Nintendo Wii in their homes.

How did Nintendo manage to break that barrier? By building a new-style motion-sensitive controller system that allowed users to direct game action by waving the controller around. To swing an in-game tennis racket, you swing the so-called Wii-mote like a tennis racket. To play a bowling game, you swing the Wii-mote in a bowling motion.

Natal, by comparison, provides much of that same functionality, but without having to hold on to the controller. Want to kick a ball in a game? Then make a kicking motion. Want to buzz in in a game show setting? Smack your fist into your hand. Want to share a drawing with an in-game avatar? Draw it and then hold it up to the Natal camera. As seen on-stage at E3, at least, it’s all very simple, and very seamless.

Bonus Stage Episode 1 part 1

Bonus Stage Episode 1 part 2

Bonus Stage Episode 1 part 3

Bonus Stage Episode 1 part 4

Microsoft Game Studios

“…Microsoft Game Studios is a brand owned by Microsoft and introduced in 2002 to represent the company as a video game publisher, coinciding with the launch of the Xbox. Games published by Microsoft under the MGS label are typically released for the Windows and/or Xbox (360) platforms exclusively, regardless of whether the developer is a first or third party.

The History Of Xbox (Part 1/3)

The History Of Xbox (Part 2/3)

he History Of Xbox (Part 3/3)

Background Articles and Videos

XBOX

“…The Xbox (name derived from “DirectXbox“[4]) is a video game console produced by Microsoft. It was Microsoft’s first foray into the gaming console market, and competed with Sony’s PlayStation 2, Sega’s Dreamcast, and Nintendo’s GameCube. The integrated Xbox Live service allows players to compete online.

The Xbox was released on November 15, 2001 in North America, February 22, 2002 in Japan, and March 14, 2002 in Australia and Europe. It is the predecessor to Microsoft’s Xbox 360 console. It was discontinued in late 2006, although the final Xbox game (Madden NFL 09) was released in August 2008. Support for out-of-warranty Xbox consoles were discontinued on March 2, 2009, although in-warranty repairs will still be done. …”

XBOX

XBOX 360

“…The Xbox 360 is the second video game console produced by Microsoft, and the successor to the Xbox. The Xbox 360 competes with Sony’s PlayStation 3 and Nintendo’s Wii as part of the seventh generation of video game consoles.

A prominent feature of the Xbox 360 is its integrated Xbox Live service that allows players to compete online and download content such as arcade games, game demos, trailers, TV shows, and movies. Major features of the console include its Windows Media Center multimedia capabilities, mandatory support of high definition in all games, movie rentals and game downloads from its online marketplace and the ability to watch HD DVD movies with an add-on drive.

The Xbox 360 was officially unveiled on MTV on May 12, 2005, with detailed launch and game information divulged later that month at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3). The console sold out completely upon release in all regions except in Japan,[3][4][5] and, as of August 27, 2009, 31 million units have been sold worldwide, according to GameSpot’s interview with Greenberg.[1] The Xbox 360 is currently available in two configurations—the “Arcade” and the “Elite”—and each has its own selection of accessories. The Pro model was set to cease production as of 28th August 2009 but be sold until supplies were exhausted. However, this move was later reverted and the Pro model continues. …”

“People have always thought that I wasn’t ambitious. They judged by appearances and were fooled. I was competitive. I wanted success and was willing to work for it.”

“Actually, I would love to make a music video. Maybe it would finally put to rest those persistent rumours that have followed me throughout my career – particularly when I was on camera performing – that I had died.”

Perry Como – White Christmas

Perry Como – O Holy Night

Perry Como – Hark the Herald Angels Sing

Perry Como – O Little Town of Bethlehem

Perry Como – Silent Night

Perry Como – O Come Al Ye Faithful

Perry Como – Round and Round

“I worked with the world’s greatest talents and then went home to the world’s greatest woman. It was, and is, a great life.”

“My only regret in life is that I didn’t spend as much time with my kids as I now wish I had.”

Background Articles and Videos

PERRY COMO SURPRISES REGIS

Como on Como – A UK Profile

t’s Impossible – A UK Profile circa 1975

Perry Como

“…Pierino “Perry” Como (May 18, 1912 – May 12, 2001) was an Italian-American singer and television personality. During a career spanning more than half a century he recorded exclusively for the RCA Victor label after signing with it in 1943. “Mr. C”, as he was nicknamed, sold millions of records for RCA and pioneered a weekly musical variety television show, which set the standards for the genre and proved to be one of the most successful in television history. His combined success on television and popular recordings was not matched by any other artist of the time.

A popular television performer and recording artist, Perry Como produced numerous hit records with record sales so high the label literally stopped counting at Como’s behest. His weekly television hobo and seasonal specials were broadcast throughout the world and his popularity seemingly had no geographical or language boundaries. He was equally at ease in live performance and in the confines of a recording studio. His appeal spanned generations and he was widely respected for both his professional standards and the conduct in his personal life. In the official RCA Records Billboard Magazine memorial, his life was summed up in these few words: “50 years of music and a life well lived. An example to all.”

Well known composer Ervin Drake said of him, ” . . . occasionally someone like Perry comes along and won’t ‘go with the flow’ and still prevails in spite of all the bankrupt others who surround him and importune him to yield to their values. Only occasionally.”

Perry Como received the Kennedy Center Honors in 1987, and was inducted into the Long Island Music Hall of Fame in 2006. …”

“…Como, an Italian American, was born the seventh son of a seventh son in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, 20 miles south of Pittsburgh, seventh of the 13 children of Pietro Como and Lucia Travaglini, who both immigrated to the US in 1900 from the Abruzzese town of Palena. He was a Roman Catholic. His father was an amateur baritone, and had all his children attend music lessons even if he could barely afford them. Young Perry started to help his family at age 10 by helping in Steve Fragapane’s barber shop for 50¢ a week.

Although he always liked to sing, and had shown his early musical talent in his teenage years as a trombone player in the town’s brass band and as organist in the local church, his first great ambition was to be the best barber in Canonsburg. After graduation from high school, he opened his own barber shop. In 1933, he married his teenage sweetheart, Roselle Belline, whom he had met at a picnic in 1929 when he was just 17. They raised three children. In 1993, he was successfully treated for bladder cancer. Perry and Roselle remained married until her death in August 1998 at age 84. Como was reportedly devastated by her passing. …”

“…Perry Como modelled his voice and style after Bing Crosby[3] as most male singers of the 1930s and 1940s did. Perry Como’s voice is widely known for its good-natured vocal acrobatics as portrayed in his highly popular novelty songs such as “Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom)”. But there was another side to Perry Como described by music critic Gene Lees in his sleeve note to Como’s 1968 album “Look To Your Heart”:

Despite his immense popularity, Como is rarely given credit for what, once you stop and think of it, he so clearly is: one of the great singers and one of the great artists of our time. Perhaps the reason people rarely talk about his formidable attributes as a singer is that he makes so little fuss about them. That celebrated ease of his has been too little understood. Ease in any art is the result of mastery over the details of the craft. You get them together to the point where you can forget about how you do things and concentrate on what you are doing. Como got them together so completely that the muscles don’t even show. It seems effortless, but a good deal of effort has gone into making it seem so. Como is known to be meticulous about rehearsal of the material for an album. He tries things out in different keys, gives the song thought, makes suggestions, tries it again, and again, until he is satisfied. The hidden work makes him look like Mr. Casual, and too many people are taken in by it — but happily so. I have of necessity given a good deal of thought and study to the art of singing, and Como’s work consistently astonishes me. He is a fantastic technician. Listen in this album to the perfection of his intonation, the beauty of the sound he produces, the constant comfortable breath control. And take notice of his high notes. Laymen are often impressed by the high note you can hear for five blocks. Professionals know that it is far more difficult to hit a high note quietly. Como lights on a C or D at the top of a tune as softly as a bird on a branch, not even shaking it. And then there’s his phrasing. A number of our best singers phrase well. The usual technique is to rethink the lyrics of a song to see how they would come out if you were saying them, and then approximate in singing the normal speech inflections and rhythms. This often involves altering the melody, but it is a legitimate practice and when done well can be quite striking. But Como is beyond that. He apparently does not find it necessary to change the melodic line in order to infuse a song with emotion. A great jazz trumpeter once told me, “After fifteen years of playing, I’ve come to the conclusion that the hardest thing to do is to play melody, play it straight and get feeling into it.” Como has been doing this from the beginning. Stylistically, he comes out of the Bing Crosby-Russ Colombo school. That was all a long time ago. Como has been his own man for many years now. He sounds like nobody else. And nobody sounds like him, either. He is hard to imitate precisely because his work is so free of tricks and gimmicks. There are no mannerisms for another singer to pick up from him. All one can do is try to sing as well and as honestly as Como, and any singer who does that will end up sounding like himself, not Como. …”

Glenn Beck-09-25-09-C

Glenn Beck-09-25-09-D

Glenn Beck-09-25-09-E

Glenn Beck-09-25-09-E (continued)

The Mothers of America care and are deeply concerned about what the politicians of both political parties are doing with their reckless and irresponsible deficit spending and the impact this will have on their children’s and grandchildren’s future opportunities.

If any single group in America can save this country from progressive radical socialism it is your Mom.

Every one has a Mom and most Americans listen to theirs.

The political class and elites in the United States better start paying attention, otherwise they are in for a very big surprise come future election days.

Should the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by President Barack Obama try to demonize and marginalize the Mothers of America, both will soon be finished as a force in American politics.

Listen to your Mom.

Clean up your act.

For the Moms:

Perry Como sings “Someone to Watch Over Me”

Perry Como – Toora Loora Loora

Perry Como – And I Love You So

Background Articles and Reports

The 9-12 Project

Principles, 12 Values

The 9 Principles

1.

America Is Good.

2.

I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3.

I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4.

The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5.

If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6.

I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7.

I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8.

It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9.

The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck

“…Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur. He hosts The Glenn Beck Program, a nationally syndicated talk radio show that airs throughout the United States on Premiere Radio Networks. Beck also hosts the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel. He refers to himself as a libertarian[1] and a conservative[2] who is “fighting for individual rights.”[1]

In addition to broadcasting, Beck has written three New York Times-bestselling books, and is the publisher of Fusion Magazine. He also stars in a one-man stage show that tours the US twice a year.[3] Glenn Beck was featured on the cover of the Sept 28, 2009 issue of Time magazine.[4]…”

“…Political Views

Beck says of his political views, “I consider myself a libertarian. I’m a conservative, but every day that goes by I’m fighting for individual rights.”[15] Among his core values Beck lists personal responsibility, private charity, right to life, freedom of religion, low debt, limited government, and family as the cornerstone of society.[2]

Beck supports individual gun ownership rights and is against gun control legislation.[16] He has suggested that President Barack Obama’s health care reform agenda is a means by which Obama can effect reparations for slavery.[17] Beck believes that there is a lack of evidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming,[18] views the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a form of wealth redistribution, and has promoted a petition rejecting the Kyoto Protocol.[19]

9-12 Project

Beck put together a campaign, The 9-12 Project, that is named for nine principles and twelve values which he says embody the spirit of the American people on the day after the September 11 attacks.[20] Beck has supported the tea party protests from their inception and held a broadcast from one of the April 2009 rallies in San Antonio.[21]

In September 2009, the conservative political activism group Freedomworks organized the Taxpayer March on Washington, to rally against President Obama’s policies.[22] The event was inspired by Beck’s 9/12 project[23] and attracted many people, with estimates ranging from 75,000 to over 1 million.[24][25] …”

“The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.

~Eric Hoffer, A Comment Made in 1968

Netanyahu U.N. Speech – (1 of 3)

Netanyahu U.N. Speech – (2 of 3)

Netanyahu U.N. Speech – (3 of 3)

The simple and direct truth of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations confronts the evil of the Iranian regime and its allies Hesbollah.

The United States for nearly thirty years has also been attacked by the Iranian regime, mainly through the use of proxies such as Hesbollah.

Beirut Remembered

24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing

“The prevent defense prevents nothing.”

~Marine Suvivor of Terrorist Bombing of The Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, October 23, 1983

The time has come to destroy both the nuclear and missile weapons systems sites of Iran and overthrow the Iranian regime.

Will the United States stand with Israel or will the President of the United States appease the terrorists?

The American people want the United States of America to stand with Israel.

The American people want the endless and fruitless years of talking and sanctions stopped and action taken to eliminate the threat of terrorist having nuclear weapons that can be delievered by missiles.

For nearly seven years talking has not worked with the Iranian regime, nor are sanctions working.

John Bolton: “Obama Said Everything Except Why Cant We All Just Get Along”

The President of the United States would shamefully appease the terrorists and give aid and comfort to the Iranian regime.

The President’s Message to the Iranian People

President Obama’s special video message for all those celebrating Nowruz, or “New Day.” This year, the President wanted to send a special message to the people and government of Iran, acknowledging the strain in our relations over the last few decades. After committing his administration to a future of honest and respectful diplomacy, he addresses Iran’s leaders directly. (this video is public domain)

Instead President Obama is more concerned with the threat of climate change or global warming and implementing the United Nations Agenda 21 for sustainable development.

Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome

Obama on Track For Agenda 21

UN Listens To Obama On Climate Change

The United Nations is a corrupt and failed institution dominated by member nations that oppose the United States and Israel.

Repeatedly the United Nations has aided and sided with the forces of evil by not acting to secure human life and peace.

This is to be expected where over 50% of the 192 member nations are dictatorships and tyrannies and only a minority of member nations are democracies.

The United States should withraw from the United Nations as a member nation and stop funding this corrupt and failed institution.

The United States and Israel should jointly eliminate both the nuclear and missile threat posed by the Iranian regime and assist the forces for freedom in Iran.

The evil Iranian regime must be eliminated now not after it uses a nuclear bomb on Israel or one of its neighboring countries.

Finally the President announces what the U.S Government has known for years, that Iran has a secret nuclear site in Qom.
Again he wants to talk some more and impose sanctions:

Obama Accuses Iran of Hiding Nuclear Site

Secret Nuclear Weapons?

Iran admits to secretly building second nuclear plant

Obama on Iran Nuke Program

John Bolton on Iran’s Nuke Program (9/18/09)

Action not talking is required.

“Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

~Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, May 2, 1935

Background Articles and Videos

Holy War (Part 1 of 2)

Holy War (Part 2 of 2)

US determined to attack IRAN – 1

US determined to attack IRAN – 2

HEZBOLLAH HIZBULLAH-BEST EVER GLIMPSE OF HEZBULLAH-MustWatch

Hezbollah

“…Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-‘llāh(i),[2] literally “party of God”) is a Shi’a Islamist political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah is now also a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and plays a significant force in Lebanese politics.[4] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.[3] Many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah while others have praised the party.[5][6] Several western countries regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.[7]

Hezbollah first emerged as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee, in 1982, set on resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war.[3][8] Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[9] Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto listed its three main goals as “putting an end to any colonialist entity” in Lebanon, bringing the Phalangists to justice for “the crimes they [had] perpetrated,” and the establishment of an Islamic regime in Lebanon.[10][11] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a “Zionist entity… built on lands wrested from their owners.”[10][11]

Hezbollah, which started with only a small militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.[12] Hezbollah maintains strong support among Lebanon’s Shi’a population, and gained a surge of support from Lebanon’s broader population (Sunni, Christian, Druze) immediately following the 2006 Lebanon War,[13] and is able to mobilize demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.[14] Hezbollah alongside with some other groups began the 2006–2008 Lebanese political protests in opposition to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[15] Later dispute over Hezbollah preserve its telecoms network led to clashes and Hezbollah-led opposition fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods from Future Movement militiamen loyal to Fouad Siniora, this areas then handed over to the Lebanese Army.[16] Finally, on the basis of Doha Agreement, Hezbollah was granted veto power in Lebanon’s parliament. In addition, National unity government was formed which Hezbollah has one minister and controls eleven of thirty seats in it.[4][17]

Hezbollah receives its financial support from Iran, Syria, and the donations of Lebanese and other Shi’a.[18][19] It has also gained significantly in military strength in the 2000s.[20] Despite a June 2008 certification by the United Nations that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory,[21] in August of that year, Lebanon’s new Cabinet unanimously approved a draft policy statement which secures Hezbollah’s existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to “liberate or recover occupied lands.” Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. …”

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

“…In the Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) during the Lebanese Civil War, two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 servicemen, including 220 U.S. Marines. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah—or a group that would later become part of Hezbollah[1]—receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.[2]

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs, and the explosives used at the Marine barracks were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT. Two minutes later, a similar attack levelled the eight-story ‘Drakkar’ building, killing 58 French paratroopers from 1er RCP (Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes). In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[3] In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War.[4] In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines’ building was killed in the first blast.[5]

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. …”

We’ve Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years

The seizure of the U.S. embassy followed the failure of Carter administration talks with

By Michael Ledeen

“…The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.” …”

“…Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”

Mr. Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author, most recently, of “Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West,” out next month from St. Martin’s Press.

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.

By ELIOT A. COHEN

“…At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.

The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.”

Mr. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

Martyrdom or Suicide? Cult or Movement? An analysis by two opinion leaders.

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 1 of 6)

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 2 of 6)

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 3 of 6)

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 4 of 6)

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 5 of 6)

Radical Islam: In their own words (Part 6 of 6)

United Nations

“…The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every sovereign state in the world. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, primarily: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (decides certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (assists in promoting international economic and social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (provides studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ). Additional bodies deal with the governance of all other UN System agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The UN’s most visible public figure is the Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who attained the post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.[2]

United Nations Articles

The United Nations–United Thugs

By R.J. Rummel

“…One of the most telling cases is the mass murders, and government created famine in North Korea. The country is one vast prison in which hundreds of thousands have been murdered in the last decade, and possibly three million have been starved to death. Still, except for food aid the UN is trying to provide the North Korean people, with regard to the ruling thugs responsible, the UN is like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

Similarly with the Taliban of Afghanistan, who when they controlled the country were systematically murdering their own people, repressing all their human rights, and enslaving all woman. The UN sat on its hands despite the written reports it received from its officials in the country pointing out that the murders were ordered or approved by Mullah Omar, the Taliban ruler. Just consider the Taliban murder of 178 people in the Yakaolang district of north-central Afghanistan, where UN officials had evidence that Omar was in contact with the Taliban troops doing the democide. One UN official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, exclaimed that, “These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts.” Out of frustration that the UN was doing nothing to stop the Taliban, staff members leaked their reports to the public.

Then, consider Rwanda, in which during four months of 1994 about 800,000 people were murdered in a systematic genocide organized by the Hutu government, and carried out against the Tutsi minority by its troops, police, and specially trained death squads. In 1999, an independent report, commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and headed by former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, condemned the UN’s reluctance to accept evidence of a genocide, and reluctance to act once the genocide was undeniable.

Perhaps the most famous case, although the genocide involved a much lower number of murdered–around 8,000 Muslim men and boys–was in Srebrenica, Bosnia, during the Bosnian war of 1995. Another UN commissioned report on this asserted that the UN peacekeepers stood by while Serb troops massacred those to whom the UN had promised protection. The UN had refused to reinforce their peacekeepers with enough troops, and even then severely restricted the action of those that were there.

Presently, there are a civil war and the mass murders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And again, UN peacekeepers are under armed, under manned, and over restricted by rules of engagement. Some three million Congolese have been killed so far, but all UN peacekeepers have done is stand by and watch them being murdered. In response, the UN Security Council voted to deploy an additional French led 1,400 soldiers to Bunia, the capital. But, their mandate was temporarily confined to Bunia–they could not leave it to protect refugees in neighboring areas where most of the killing was taking place. As this killing escalated, the UN deployed a new force of 3,000 Pakistani and Bangladesh troops with permission to prevent killing and violence across the whole Ituri region–3,000 UN peacekeepers across a region over twice the size of Albania.

There is also Russia’s Moslem Chechnya in which Russian troops and agents have carried out a campaign of democide, torture, and war crimes. In 2000 and 2001, the Human Rights Commission noted Russian abuses there and asked that the Russian government investigate them, and cooperate with UN human rights monitors. At no cost to itself from the UN, Russia has ignored these resolutions and in 2003 a similar resolution failed to get enough votes. …”

The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the programme. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. The number 21 refers to an agenda for the 21st century. It may also refer to the number on the UN’s agenda at this particular summit.

Agenda 21 Text

Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.1/2

Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt. 2/2

Anti-Communitarian League

Israel has no choice but to be tough on Hamas – and Iran

The dangers from Tel Aviv’s enemies are rising while its support around the world falls

Benny Morris

“…Israeli foreboding has general sources and specific causes. The general problems are simple. First, the Arab and wider Islamic worlds have never accepted the legitimacy of Israel’s creation or the continued existence of the Jewish state, notwithstanding Israel’s peace treaties with the Egyptian and Jordanian regimes, signed respectively in 1979 and 1994.

Second, public support for Israel in the West (and in democracies, governments can’t be far behind) has steadily withered over the past few decades, as the memory of the Holocaust – which in an ill-defined but general way underwrote Israel – has dimmed and as Arab power and assertiveness have surged. As well, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and its occasionally heavy-handed treatment of the Arabs have played a part.

More specifically, Israel faces a combination of dire short- and medium-term threats. To the east, Iran is advancing its nuclear project, which most Israelis and most of the world’s intelligence services believe is designed to produce nuclear weapons. The fact that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction quite naturally leaves Israelis deeply perturbed.

In the next year or so, if the world community does not force the Iranians through diplomacy and economic sanctions to halt their nuclear programme, then either the US or Israel will have to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities.

To the north lies another threat: Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shi’ite Muslim organisation that vows to destroy Israel and is funded by Iran. It has recovered from the thrashing it received in 2006 when Israeli forces struck into south Lebanon and reportedly now has an arsenal of 30,000-40,000 rockets, some of which can reach Tel Aviv and Dimona, the site of Israel’s nuclear facility.

To the south, Hamas will remain Israel’s implacable foe, its charter/constitution of 1988 proclaiming the necessity of Israel’s destruction “at the hands of Islam”. …”

Hamas

“…Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[2][3] Since June 2007, after winning a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament and defeating rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories. The European Union, the United States, and three other countries have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israelis, the first of them in April, 1993.[5] Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.[6] Hamas has also been responsible for rocket attacks, improvised explosive device attacks, and shootings, but it reduced those operations in 2005 and 2006.[7]

In January 2006, Hamas was successful in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43.[8] After Hamas’s election victory, violent and non-violent infighting arose between Hamas and Fatah.[9][10] Following the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and replaced by rival Fatah members and independents. Hamas retained control of Gaza.[11][12] On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia.[13] Israel then immediately imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, and Hamas launched Qassam attacks on areas of Israel near its border with Gaza.[14] After the end of a six-month ceasefire the conflict escalated, and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict began when Israel invaded Gaza]] in late December, 2008.[15] Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in mid-January 2009,[16] but has maintained its blockade of Gaza’s border and airspace.

Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a “well-entrenched” presence in the West Bank and Gaza.[17] An estimated 80% to 90% of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.[18][19][20]

Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[21] However, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s Damascus-based political bureau chief, stated in 2009 that the group would accept the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and, although unwilling to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel, has offered a temporary, long-term truce, or hudna, that would be valid for ten years.[22]

Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as neither religious[23] nor antisemitic;[24][25] the head of Hamas’s political bureau stated in early 2006 that the conflict with Israel “is not religious but political”, and that Jews have a covenant from God “that is to be respected and protected.”[23] Nonetheless, the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders are believed by some to be influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories.[26] According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Hamas is also anti-capitalist, and believes that the free market economy is against Islamic teachings. Hamas is described as a terrorist organization by the governments of Canada,[27] the European Union,[28][29][30] Israel,[31] Japan,[32] and the United States.[33] Australia[34] and the United Kingdom[35] list the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The US and the EU have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[36][37]

Hamas-Iran links full of contradictions, but also interests

“…When Iraq hung Saddam Hussein, furious Sunni Muslims in the militant group Hamas held mourning ceremonies. That did not sit well with Shi’ite Muslim Iran, one of Hamas’ key backers but also a strong Saddam foe.

Yet the dispute over Saddam’s execution did not break the Hamas-Iran alliance, either.

Instead the two – bound by common strategic interests – have solidified their relationship in the last year, creating a growing worry for both some Arab countries and for Israel.

Israel has in recent weeks accused Iran of training Hamas militants from Gaza and smuggling weapons to Hamas. The weekend formation of a Palestinian coalition government between Hamas, which won a democratic election a year ago, and the more moderate Fatah is sure to bring new attention to the issue.

At their core, Iran and Hamas are far apart ideologically: Iran espouses a fundamentalist Shiite version of Islam, while Hamas adheres to an equally strict rival Sunni version.

But when it comes to Hamas, Iran’s interests are based primarily on its rivalry with Washington and with its Arab allies for influence in the region. …”

Agenda 21

“…Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

~Oath of Office of the President of The United States of America

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; …”

Combat Outpost – Afghanistan

The New Great Game – Afghanistan

US Army Firefight in Afghanistan

U.S. Losing The War in Afghanistan

Mr. President, get back to the primary and most important duties and responsibilities of the President, the defense of the nation and the American people.

“When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”

~Thomas Jefferson

Background Articles and Videos

Gates to Boost ‘Enablers’ In Afghanistan Mission

By Ann Scott Tyson

“…Under Obama’s earlier order, the total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan can reach 68,000.

“No matter what we do about more combat troops, our forces there require the best counter-IED capabilities we can provide,” said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

Meanwhile, McChrystal has finished drawing up his request for what is expected to be thousands or tens of thousands of additional trainers and combat troops for Afghanistan, but he is awaiting instructions before submitting the request to the Pentagon.

Senior defense officials said that, in effect, McChrystal has been asked to delay submitting the request.

“We’re working through the process by which we want that submitted,” Gates told reporters, without elaborating.

Asked when Obama would make a decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan, Gates replied: “I don’t want to get into the timing. The president will make his decision when the questions that he has asked and the assessments that are going on have been completed. And I don’t think anybody should put any conditions on that.” …”

Obama on Afghanistan: victory is a four-letter word

By Neo-neocon

“…Has a US Commander in Chief ever spoken this way in the middle of a war?

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

Even if LBJ and McNamara felt that way about Vietnam, they didn’t state it. And Afghanistan is no Vietnam — so far. What Obama should have said instead was, “Conquering and occupying the country is not the goal, but victory is – -and here’s how we define victory in Afghanistan.” Then he could have gone on to cite his stated goals of decreasing Al Qaeda’s power in that country, as well as making the terrorist entity unable to attack the United States (although it’s hard to see how his success on the latter would be measured, since Al Qaeda hasn’t attacked us since 9/11). …”

“…This tendency of Obama’s has been in evidence in many of his speeches: his summary of the Cold War, which he got entirely wrong. His Cairo address to the Muslim world on their history and that of the West, in which “almost every one of his references was either misleading or incomplete.” On the campaign trail, when he showed astounding historical ignorance (or prevarication; take your choice) in his mischaracterization of the Berlin airlift.Obama’s errors are not random; they fit a certain pattern:

(1) glorification of other cultures and countries at the expense of the US

(2) exaggeration of the negatives about the US and downplaying of our strengths

(3) negative point of view about military endeavors

(4) exaggeration and/or imagining the role cooperation and negotiation plays, particularly with tyrants and enemies

(5) assuming the carrot of negotiation and dialogue is enough to change tyrants and enemies without the stick …”

“Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then.”

George Lakoff: Moral Politics

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

Linguist George Lakoff on Rationality and Politics

The Political Mind and the Obama Code with Dr. George Lakoff

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson Part 2

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson Part 3

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson Part 4

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson Part 5

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson Part 6

How Dems Are Failing to Sell Health Care Reform – George Lakoff

The Myth of the Political Moderate – George Lakoff

George Lakoff – Does Capitalism Always Lead to Democracy?

The Left, the Right, and the Family View of Government

Bringing Progressive Politics Back To The People Part 3

George Lakoff on how he started his work on conceptual metaphor

Background Articles and Videos

George Lakoff

“…George P. Lakoff (pronounced /ˈleɪkɒf/, born May 24, 1941) is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972. Although some of his research involves questions traditionally pursued by linguists, such as the conditions under which a certain linguistic construction is grammatically viable, he is most famous for his ideas about the centrality of metaphor to human thinking, political behavior and society. He is particularly famous for his concept of the “embodied mind”, which he has written about in relation to mathematics. In recent years he has applied his work to the realm of politics, exploring this in his books. He was the founder of the now defunct progressive think tank the Rockridge Institute.[1][2]

Lakoff began his career as a student and later a teacher of the theory of transformational grammar developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky. In the late 1960s, however, he joined with others to promote generative semantics as an alternative to Chomsky’s generative syntax. In an interview he stated:

During that period, I was attempting to unify Chomsky’s transformational grammar with formal logic. I had helped work out a lot of the early details of Chomsky’s theory of grammar. Noam claimed then — and still does, so far as I can tell — that syntax is independent of meaning, context, background knowledge, memory, cognitive processing, communicative intent, and every aspect of the body…In working through the details of his early theory, I found quite a few cases where semantics, context, and other such factors entered into rules governing the syntactic occurrences of phrases and morphemes. I came up with the beginnings of an alternative theory in 1963 and, along with wonderful collaborators like Haj Ross and Jim McCawley, developed it through the sixties.[1]

Lakoff’s claim that Chomsky claims independence between syntax and semantics has been rejected by Chomsky and he has given examples from within his work where he talks about the relationship between his semantics and syntax. Chomsky goes further and claims that Lakoff has “virtually no comprehension of the work he is discussing” (the work in question being Chomsky’s) [3]. His differences with Chomsky contributed to fierce, acrimonious debates among linguists that have come to be known as the “linguistics wars”.

Lakoff’s original thesis on conceptual metaphor was expressed in his book with Mark Johnson entitled Metaphors We Live By in 1980.

Metaphor has been seen within the Western scientific tradition as purely a linguistic construction. The essential thrust of Lakoff’s work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought. He says, “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.” Non-metaphorical thought is for Lakoff only possible when we talk about purely physical reality. For Lakoff the greater the level of abstraction the more layers of metaphor are required to express it. People do not notice these metaphors for various reasons. One reason is that some metaphors become ‘dead’ and we no longer recognize their origin. Another reason is that we just don’t “see” what is “going on”.

For instance, in intellectual debate the underlying metaphor is usually that argument is war (later revised as “argument is struggle”):

He won the argument.

Your claims are indefensible.

He shot down all my arguments.

His criticisms were right on target.

If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.

For Lakoff, the development of thought has been the process of developing better metaphors. The application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings.

Lakoff’s theory has applications throughout all academic disciplines and much of human social interaction. Lakoff has explored some of the implications of the embodied mind thesis in a number of books, most written with coauthors….”

“…

Lakoff’s application of cognitive linguistics to politics, literature, philosophy and mathematics has led him into territory normally considered basic to political science.

Lakoff has publicly expressed both ideas about the conceptual structures that he views as central to understanding the political process, and some of his particular political views. He almost always discusses the latter in terms of the former.

Moral Politics gives book-length consideration to the conceptual metaphors that Lakoff sees as present in the minds of American “liberals” and “conservatives”. The book is a blend of cognitive science and political analysis. Lakoff makes an attempt to keep his personal views confined to the last third of the book, where he explicitly argues for the superiority of the liberal vision.[2]

Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the “strict father model” and has a family structured around a strong, dominant “father” (government), and assumes that the “children” (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible “adults” (morality, self-financing). Once the “children” are “adults”, though, the “father” should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the “nurturant parent model”, based on “nurturant values”, where both “mothers” and “fathers” work to keep the essentially good “children” away from “corrupting influences” (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.[4]

Lakoff further argues that one of the reasons liberals have had difficulty since the 1980s is that they have not been as aware of their own guiding metaphors, and have too often accepted conservative terminology framed in a way to promote the strict father metaphor. Lakoff insists that liberals must cease using terms like partial birth abortion and tax relief because they are manufactured specifically to allow the possibilities of only certain types of opinions. Tax relief for example, implies explicitly that taxes are an affliction, something someone would want “relief” from. To use the terms of another metaphoric worldview, Lakoff insists, is to unconsciously support it. Liberals must support linguistic think tanks in the same way that conservatives do if they are going to succeed in appealing to those in the country who share their metaphors.[5]

Lakoff has distributed some much briefer political analyses via the Internet. One article distributed this way is “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf”, in which Lakoff argues that the particular conceptual metaphors used by the first Bush administration to justify American involvement in the Gulf ended up either obscuring reality, or putting a spin on the facts that was accommodating to the administration’s case for military action.

In recent years, Lakoff has become involved with a progressive think tank, the Rockridge Institute, an involvement that follows in part from his recommendations in Moral Politics. Among his activities with the Institute, which concentrates in part on helping liberal candidates and politicians with re-framing political metaphors, Lakoff has given numerous public lectures and written accounts of his message from Moral Politics. In 2008, Lakoff joined Fenton Communications, the nation’s largest public interest communications firm, as a Senior Consultant.

One of his political works, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, self-labeled as “the Essential Guide for Progressives”, was published in September 2004 and features a foreword by former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. …”

Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

“…In 2000 Lakoff and seven other faculty members from Berkeley and UC Davis joined together to found the Rockridge Institute, one of the few progressive think tanks in existence in the U.S. The institute offers its expertise and research on a nonpartisan basis to help progressives understand how best to get their messages across. The Richard & Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor in the College of Letters & Science, Lakoff is the author of “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think,” first published in 1997 and reissued in 2002, as well as several other books on how language affects our lives. He is taking a sabbatical this year to write three books – none about politics – and to work on several Rockridge Institute research projects. …”

“…The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta [former chief of staff for the Clinton administration] is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center’s framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, “You!” Which meant they haven’t thought about it at all. And that’s the problem. Liberals don’t get it. They don’t understand what it is they have to be doing.

Rockridge’s job is to reframe public debate, to create balance from a progressive perspective. It’s one thing to analyze language and thought, it’s another thing to create it. That’s what we’re about. It’s a matter of asking ‘What are the central ideas of progressive thought from a moral perspective?’

How does language influence the terms of political debate?

Language always comes with what is called “framing.” Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like “revolt,” that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That’s a frame. …”

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 1 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 2 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 3 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 4 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 5 of 6

1912 US Election Campaign Speech Audio – Woodrow Wilson 6 of 6

A New Progressive America

Background Articles and Videos

Liberal Fascism

Progressivism

“…In U.S. history, the term progressivism refers to a broadly-based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century, generally considered to be left wing in nature. The initial progressive movement arose as a response to the vast changes brought by the industrial revolution. Contemporary progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice[1]. Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives. Alonzo L. Hamby defines progressivism as the “political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century.”[2]

In the early 20th century, politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, Bull-Moose Republicans, and the United States Progressive Party began to pursue social, environmental, political, and economic reforms. Chief among these aims was the pursuit of trustbusting (breaking up very large monopolies), support for labor unions, public health programs, decreased corruption in politics, and environmental conservation[citation needed].

Progressivism at the turn of the twentieth century was largely a bipartisan effort led by William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Robert La Follette[citation needed]. One leader, Bryan, had been linked to the Populist movement of the 1890s, while the other major leaders were opposed to Populism. When Roosevelt left the Republican party in 1912, he took with him many of the intellectual leaders of progressivism, but very few political leaders[citation needed]. The Republican party then became notably more committed to business-oriented and efficiency oriented progressivism, typified by Taft and Herbert Hoover. Political progressivism was also represented in the candidacies of economic philosopher Henry George and the Single Tax movement, President Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull-Moose Party, and the Cleveland mayoral administration of Tom L. Johnson[citation needed].

The foundation of the progressive tendency was rooted in the uniquely American philosophy of pragmatism, which was primarily developed by John Dewey[citation needed]. However, two of Dewey’s most prominent students, Mortimer J. Adler and Brand Blanshard, both rejected the moral relativism inherent in Pragmatism; and Blanshard set out a devastating critique of Pragmatism in his two-volume study “The Nature of Thought”[citation needed]. Adler and Blanshard provided a similar alternative view (moral absolutism grounded in Aristotelian views) far more consonant with the moral agenda of Progressivism[citation needed].

Another intellectual strand in Progressivism has been populism, which can range from the political left to the political right[citation needed]. Populism has often manifested itself as a distrust of concentrations of power in the hands of politicians, corporations, families, and special interest groups, generating calls for reform[citation needed].

Equally significant to progressive-era reform were the crusading journalists, known as muckrakers. These journalists revealed to middle class readers the evils of economic privilege, political corruption, and social injustice[citation needed]. Their articles appeared in McClure’s Magazine and other reform periodicals. Some muckrakers focused on corporate abuses. Ida Tarbell, for instance, exposed the activities of the Standard Oil Company. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffens dissected corruption in city government. In Following the Color Line (1908), Ray Stannard Baker criticized race relations. Other muckrakers assailed the U.S. Senate, railroad practices, insurance companies, and fraud in patent medicine.

Novelists, too, revealed corporate injustices. Theodore Dreiser drew harsh portraits of a type of ruthless businessman in The Financier (1912) and The Titan (1914). In The Jungle (1906) Socialist Upton Sinclair repelled readers with descriptions of Chicago’s meatpacking plants, and his work led to support for remedial food safety legislation. Leading intellectuals also shaped the progressive mentality. In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen attacked the “conspicuous consumption” of the wealthy. Educator John Dewey emphasized a child-centered philosophy of pedagogy, known as progressive education, which affected schoolrooms for three generations.[16]

“…Theodore D. Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919;[2] pronounced /ˈroʊzəvɛlt/[3]), also called “T.R.”,[4] was the youngest President of the United States,[5] but he is most remembered for his energy, his range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his “cowboy” image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Bull Moose Party. Before becoming the 26th President (1901–1909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt’s achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician.

Born to a wealthy family, Roosevelt was a sickly child who stayed at home studying natural history. In response to his physical weakness, he embraced a strenuous life. He attended Harvard, where he boxed and developed an interest in naval affairs. A year out of Harvard, in 1881 he ran for a seat in the state legislature. His first historical book, The Naval War of 1812, published in 1882, established his reputation as a serious historian. After a few years of living in the Badlands, Roosevelt returned to New York City, where he gained fame for fighting police corruption. He was effectively running the US Department of the Navy when the Spanish American War broke out; he resigned and led a small regiment in Cuba known as the Rough Riders, earning himself the Medal of Honor. After the war, he returned to New York and was elected Governor; two years later he was nominated for and elected Vice President of the United States.

In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became president at 42. Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase “Square Deal” to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement. On the world stage, Roosevelt policies were characterized by his comment, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Roosevelt declined to run for re-election in 1908. After leaving office, he embarked on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. On his return to the US, a rift developed between Roosevelt and his anointed[6][7] successor as President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt attempted in 1912 to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft, and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson. After the election, Roosevelt embarked on a major expedition to South America; the river on which he traveled now bears his name. The trip damaged his health, and he died a few years later, at the age of 60. He has been among the most honored of American presidents, including having his face carved into Mount Rushmore. …”

Woodrow Wilson

“…Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D. (December 28, 1856–February 3, 1924)[1] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912. To date he is the only President to hold a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree and the only President to serve in a political office in New Jersey before election to the Presidency.

In his first term, Wilson supported a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[2] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America’s first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. In a move that garnered a backlash from civil rights groups, and is still criticized today, Wilson supported imposing segregation in many federally-funded agencies,[3][4] which involved firing black workers from numerous posts.[5]

Narrowly re-elected in 1916, Wilson’s second term centered on World War I. He based his re-election campaign around the slogan “he kept us out of the war,” but U.S. neutrality would be short-lived. When German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sent a message to Mexico offering to return Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to them if they would ally with Germany in the event of war, and began unrestricted submarine warfare, Wilson wrote several admonishing notes to Germany, and, finally in April 1917, asked Congress to declare war. He focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving the waging of the war primarily in the hands of the military establishment. On the home front, he began the United States’ first effective draft in 1917, raised billions in war funding through Liberty Bonds, set up the War Industries Board, promoted labor union growth, supervised agriculture and food production through the Lever Act, took over control of the railroads, enacted the first federal drug prohibition, and suppressed anti-war movements. National women’s suffrage was also achieved under Wilson’s presidency.

In the late stages of the war, Wilson took personal control of negotiations with Germany, including the armistice. He issued his Fourteen Points, his view of a post-war world that could avoid another terrible conflict. He went to Paris in 1919 to create the League of Nations and shape the Treaty of Versailles, with special attention on creating new nations out of defunct empires. Largely for his efforts to form the League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S. joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. Wilson’s idealistic internationalism, now referred to as “Wilsonianism”, which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for “idealists” to emulate and “realists” to reject ever since. …”

Center for American Progress

“…The Center for American Progress is a liberal[1][2][3][4] public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website describes it as “… a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.”[5]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing the significant number of its staff and former staff that have been appointed to positions in the Obama Administration, Time magazine recently declared that there is “no group in Washington with more influence at this moment in history.”[6][7]

…”

“…The Center for American Progress was created in 2003 as an alternative to think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.[8]

Since its inception, the Center has gathered a group of high-profile senior fellows, including Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan; Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council under President Bill Clinton; Ruy Teixeira, political scientist and author of The Emerging Democratic Majority; and, most recently, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.

The Center manages a radio studio, and offers the studio for use to shows across the ideological spectrum. It is used daily by the Bill Press Show, a syndicated talk radio program broadcast from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern Time weekday mornings. Jones Radio Networks is the syndicator.

The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that “seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)” assisted its formation.[9] The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.[10]

The Center helped Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) develop “strategic redeployment”,[11] a comprehensive plan for the Iraq War that includes a timetable and troop withdrawals. …”

Funding

“…The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations. From 2003 to 2007, the center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors. [21]

Some open government groups, such as the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Legal Center, criticize the Center’s failure to disclose its contributors, particularly since it is so influential in appointments to the Obama administration.[22] …”

Center for American Progress

New America Foundation

“…The New America Foundation is a non-profit public policy institute and think tank located in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1998 by Ted Halstead, Sherle Schwenninger, Michael Lind and Walter Russell Mead.

In 2007 Steve Coll, a former managing editor of The Washington Post, succeeded Ted Halstead as President of the New America Foundation. Well-known board members include political commentator Fareed Zakaria, Christine Todd Whitman, international relations theorist Francis Fukuyama, Atlantic Monthly correspondent James Fallows, former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson, and economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson. Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, is chairman-elect of the foundation.[1].

Sam Cooke – Basin Street Blues (The Tonight Show – Feb. 7, 1964)

Background Articles and Videos

Sam Cooke

“…Samuel “Sam” Cooke (January 22, 1931 – December 11, 1964) was an American gospel, R&B, soul, and pop singer, songwriter, and entrepreneur. He is considered to be one of the pioneers and founders of soul music.[2][3][4]

Cooke had twenty-nine Top 40 hits in the U.S. between 1957 and 1964. Major hits like “You Send Me”, “A Change Is Gonna Come”, “Chain Gang”, “Wonderful World”, and “Bring It on Home to Me” are some of his most popular songs. Cooke was also among the first modern black performers and composers to attend to the business side of his musical career. He founded both a record label and a publishing company as an extension of his careers as a singer and composer. He also took an active part in the American Civil Rights Movement.[5]

Glenn Beck-09-22-09-A

Glenn Beck-09-22-09-B

Glenn Beck-09-22-09-C

Glenn Beck-09-22-09-D

Glenn Beck-09-22-09-E

Background Articles and Videos

GUIDE TO THE GEORGE SOROS NETWORK

“George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion. His management company controls billions more in investor assets. Since 1979, his foundation network – whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed an estimated $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. (The President of OSI and the Soros Foundation Network is Aryeh Neier, who, as Director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, personally created the radical group Students for a Democratic Society in 1959.) With assets of $859 million as of 2005, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups, whose major agendas can be summarized as follows:

promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

defending suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

promoting socialized medicine in the United States

promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”

bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike …”

Who Funds the Radical Left In America?

By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism

“…Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center. …”

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.

Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.

If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no organization in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (These could be, for instance, farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation’s activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

Tides Center

“… Tides Center is a non-profit organization in the United States which provides fiscal sponsorship for progressive groups. Tides Center is classified a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization by the IRS. The organization is based in San Francisco with offices in the Presidio.

It is administratively linked to but separate from the Tides Foundation. Tides Center and Tides Foundation are part of a family of organizations linked by a commitment to social change, innovation, and responsible stewardship of resources.

The Tides Center handles administrative functions such as payroll, benefits, insurance, and tax form 990 in exchange for a fee, which varies, and which is taken out of grant monies.[citation needed]

A recent blog post by Los Angeles-based artist Patrick Courrielche details an August 10, 2009, conference call hosted by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The stated purpose of the call was to encourage a select group of artists “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.” According to Mr. Courrielche, the NEA and the White House were “steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate; those being health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation.” Seehttp://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/.

If accurate, Mr. Courrielche’s account of this conference call organized and hosted by your Administration raises a number of serious concerns. First and foremost among these concerns is the participation of the NEA in a conversation “steering” the arts community toward a pro-Administration political message.

As you know, the NEA is the largest annual funder of the arts in the United States. And the imprimatur of an NEA grant often spurs private funding, making NEA grant decisions even more powerful within the arts community. But, as former NEA Chairman Dana Gioia wrote in 2007, “[t]he NEA does not dictate arts policy to the United States . . . .” Indeed, as Gioia observes, this feature is what distinguishes the NEA from other nations’ centralized ministries of culture.

A reasonable observer would view the NEA’s participation in the August 10 call as implying that NEA grant opportunities (i.e., taxpayer dollars) may be tied to artists’ willingness to use their creative talents to advance your Administration’s political agenda. This is not, and has never been, the purpose of the NEA.

Such politicization of the NEA is particularly dangerous at a time when the arts community struggles for philanthropy. But even if no NEA funding was intended for political purposes, one cannot escape the disturbing impression that this Administration-including appointees within the White House and the NEA-believes that it is appropriate for the federal government to enlist the arts community for the purpose of furthering a specific political agenda. I agree with President John F. Kennedy, who said that “[w]e must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.”

I urge you to make clear that your Administration will never allocate taxpayer dollars to artists based on their support for Administration policy initiatives. Further, I respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to ensure that the NEA-and the American arts community it supports-remain independent from political manipulation by the White House.

This episode appears to merit congressional hearings and sustained oversight-and so I request your prompt response to these charges and my concerns.

High Noon for politicized arts funding

Thomas Lifson

“…The next Breitbart tape debuts at noon today (EDT). The National Endowment for the Arts and White House official Buffy Wicks are bracing for the new bombshell coming from Andrew Breitbart and BigGovernment.com. The website offers a preview this morning on BigGovernment.com, citing the notorious and likely illegal politicization of the NEA, bullying artists receiving grants into works supporting the administration’s legislative priorities. Mike Flynn and John Nolte write: …”

“…Meanwhile, Clarice Feldman informs us that BigGovernment.com reports that a White House website encouraging volunteerism filters applicants to ACORN: …”

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770

Obama: We Can Reverse Climate Change

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5)

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: BJORN LOMBORG

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PHILIP STOTT

Climate Change – has it been cancelled?

First, climate is always changing.

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)

The Lies Of Global Warming pt 1

Second, the main driver or cause for climate change is the sun.

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

While there are many other causes ordrivers of global climate change including man, man’s impact on global climate change is minimial and immaterial relative to the other drivers or causes.

Man is not the primary cause or driver of climate change.

Third, temperatures have been falling for the last ten years and this may continue for another ten years or more.

Scientists now see a new Ice age

Glenn Beck and NewsBusters Expose Global Warming Bullies

Fouth, the polar ice caps are always expanding, contracting and moving; and the United Nations own IPCC 2007 estimate was that the sea level will rise between 18 cm to 59 cm or a maximum of 23 inches by 2100.

The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 6)

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5)

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 4 of 4

The progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by Barack Obama need a climate crisis to justify a massive tax increase–the cap and trade energy tax.

If global climate is always changing and man-made carbon dioxide emissions is not the primary driver of climate change, than there is absolutely no justification for the cap and trade energy tax.

President Obama is lying about climate being a crisis that we can reverse.

President Obama is a fool if he thinks we can and should reverse it.

Spending billions or trillions of dollars on such an effort is sheer folly and immoral, especially considering the more pressing and real problems faced by the world’s poor.

Bjorn Lomborg: Our priorities for saving the world

President Obama is sadly trying to destroy jobs, wreck the US economy, and kill the American dream by supporting the cap and trade energy tax.

The American people no longer believe his lies nor will they permit the destruction of a free enterprise economy and a representative republic to save the planet from so-called man-made global warming.

Most revealing was the phrase in the President’s speech “…reducing greenhouse gas pollution…”

This clearly illustrated that President Obama does not have the slightest clue as to what he is talking about.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor followed by carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse Gases

CO2 is a trace gas

Neither water vapor nor carbon dixoide are pollutants.

Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are critically necessary for life on earth.

Without greenhouse gases humans, animals and plants could not survive.

plants need co2 to grow

Global Warming – Carbon Dioxide

Michele Bachmann: “CO2 Is A Natural Byproduct of Nature!”

Global Warming Facts

Barack Obama is a fool for underestimating the common sense of the American people.

Cap and Trade Insanity

The American people do not believe man is the cause of climate change nor do they believe Barack Obama is telling the truth.

Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming: ‘This Thing Is Phony’

OBAMA IS GOING TO SCREW YOU!

“It is the true believer’s ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. It is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.”

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2 of 2 Bogus Climate Models

President Obama Speaks On Climate Change At The UN

Newt Rips Gore’s ‘Facts’ To Pieces

Al Gore is a Self Serving LIAR

Global Warming: How Hot Air and Bad Science Will Give YOU Staggeringly Higher Taxes and Prices

Global Warming – what do the numbers show.

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 1 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 2 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 3 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 4 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 5 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 6 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 7 of 8

JLF/Reese Institute climate change forum: Part 8 of 8

Senator Inhofe Cap-and-trade floor speech March 18, 2009

Global Climate Cooling Facts

“…Study of the orbital mechanics of the solar system in the 1970s led Russians to believe the Earth was about to cool and we should prepare quickly because it will be catastrophic. Their arguments were lost in the rush to warming group-think in the 1990s, but the arguments for impending cold are well founded and still believed by many good scientists. As the sun goes even quieter and January, 2008 saw the greatest year to year temperature drop ever (128 years of NASA GISS data) and thru the end of 2008 remains relatively cool, it is clear cooling needs to be considered as a very plausible future. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and remind us that the sun is projected to cool and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. Both papers state that these factors are underappreciated by IPCC. The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. With the Sun’s face nearly quiet, the monthly patterns over the last 12 months are most similar to those of 1797 preceding the Dalton Minimum of 1798-1823 during the little ice age (Timo Niroma). …”

Current Sea Level Rise

“…Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due partly to human-induced global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods[6][7]. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important,[8] and are more difficult to predict and quantify.[8] Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Based on an analog to the deglaciation of North America at 9,000 years before present, some scientists predict sea level rise of 1.3 meters in the next century.[9][10] However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 80 centimeters, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude and to the sea.[11

…”

“…Each year about 8 mm (0.3 inch) of water from the entire surface of the oceans falls into the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets as snowfall. If no ice returned to the oceans, sea level would drop 8 mm every year. To a first approximation, the same amount of water appeared to return to the ocean in icebergs and from ice melting at the edges. Scientists previously had estimated which is greater, ice going in or coming out, called the mass balance, important because it causes changes in global sea level. High-precision gravimetry from satellites in low-noise flight has since determined Greenland is losing millions of tons per year, in accordance with loss estimates from ground measurement.[citation needed] Some estimates range up to 240 km^3 per year in recent years.[12]

Ice shelves float on the surface of the sea and, if they melt, to first order they do not change sea level. Likewise, the melting of the northern polar ice cap which is composed of floating pack ice would not significantly contribute to rising sea levels. Because they are fresh, however, their melting would cause a very small increase in sea levels, so small that it is generally neglected. It can however be argued that if ice shelves melt it is a precursor to the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica[citation needed].

Scientists previously lacked knowledge of changes in terrestrial storage of water. Surveying of water retention by soil absorption and by reservoirs outright (“impoundment”) at just under the volume of Lake Superior agreed with a dam-building peak in the 1930s-1970s timespan. Such impoundment masked tens of millimeters of sea level rise in that span. ( Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level B. F. Chao,* Y. H. Wu, Y. S. Li).

If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[13] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[14]

The snowline altitude is the altitude of the lowest elevation interval in which minimum annual snow cover exceeds 50%. This ranges from about 5,500 metres above sea-level at the equator down to sea level at about 70° N&S latitude, depending on regional temperature amelioration effects. Permafrost then appears at sea level and extends deeper below sea level polewards.

As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not, through melting, contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can, however, do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving.

Climate changes during the 20th century are estimated from modelling studies to have led to contributions of between –0.2 and 0.0 mm/yr from Antarctica (the results of increasing precipitation) and 0.0 to 0.1 mm/yr from Greenland (from changes in both precipitation and runoff).

Estimates suggest that Greenland and Antarctica have contributed 0.0 to 0.5 mm/yr over the 20th century as a result of long-term adjustment to the end of the last ice age.

The current rise in sea level observed from tide gauges, of about 1.8 mm/yr, is within the estimate range from the combination of factors above[15] but active research continues in this field. The terrestrial storage term, thought to be highly uncertain, is no longer positive, and shown to be quite large.

Since 1992 a number of satellites have been recording the change in sea level;[16][17] they display an acceleration in the rate of sea level change, but they have not been operating for long enough to work out whether this is a real signal, or just an artefact of short-term variation. …”

Andrew Breitbart Takes A Baseball Bat To Glenn Beck,He Is Race Baiter And A Coward

The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart

Big Hollywood

“…Andrew Breitbart is publisher of the news portals Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv. In January 2009, he launched Big Hollywood, a group blog off of Breitbart.com on Hollywood and politics from the center/right perspective. His latest group blog endeavor, Big Government, launched in September. His column, “Big Hollywood,” appears weekly in the Washington Times and he co-wrote the best-selling attack on celebrity culture, Hollywood, Interrupted. Andrew was also the primary developer for The Huffington Post (don’t hold that against him). …”

Background Articles and Videos

Andrew Breitbart

“…Andrew Breitbart (born February 1, 1969) is an American conservative commentator for the Washington Times, author,[2] and an occasional guest commentator on various news programs. He may be best-known for serving as an editor for the Drudge Report website. He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and was employed by her to assist in the launch of her website, The Huffington Post.[3] He currently runs his own portal, Breitbart.com, and two other sites: Big Hollywood, and Big Government. …”

“…Breitbart grew up in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles and procured employment at local fast-food restaurant All-American Burger at age 15, by lying about his age. Later, he worked as a pizza deliveryperson and car washer.[4] He graduated from Tulane University in 1991.[5]

His early jobs included a stint at cable channel E! Entertainment Television, working for the company’s online magazine before going to work for Huffington. In 1995 he saw the Drudge Report and was so impressed that he emailed Matt Drudge. “I thought what he was doing was by far the coolest thing on the Internet. And I still do.”[3]

He is married to Susannah (Susie) Bean, daughter of actor Orson Bean, with whom he has four children.[3][6]

”

“…Andrew Breitbart gave some advance notice that he would be producing a new blog, entitled “Big Government”, and that it would premier on September 10, 2009. [15] The blog started by airing footage about the alleged scandal regarding ACORN staffers in Baltimore who gave unethical advice concerning underage prostitution and tax-evasion on-tape to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe. Within 24 hours of the video’s release, the two women featured on the hidden camera were fired by ACORN over the incident.

After the release of the second in the tape series, which targeted the Washington D.C. ACORN office, the U.S. Census Bureau severed its connection with ACORN, which had been scheduled to assist in the 2010 census, a move that one of ACORN’s founders, Wade Rathke, has condemned, saying the Census Bureau’s actions prove “how willing the Obama administration is open to a cave-in to the conservatives on false pretenses on a completely fake ‘issue.’”

Five “sting tapes,” with Hannah Giles portraying the “prostitute” Kenya, and O’Keefe acting as her boyfriend/pimp, have been released; these feature the ACORN offices in Baltimore, Maryland, Washington, DC, Brooklyn, New York, and both San Bernardino and San Diego, California.

The tapings were criticised by people such as MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, who suggested it was “entrapment” with hidden cameras.[16] Brian Kettenring, deputy director of national operations for ACORN, said that the tapes were illegally recorded and are examples of “gotcha” journalism.[16]

Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Visionary

By Matthew Vadum

He’s absolutely right to say that conservatives “can’t win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.”

Breitbart offered this reflection after running the gauntlet of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” (video available at Breitbart’s Big Hollywood website) where he was tag-teamed by a liberal elitist host and a self-important pseudo-intellectual named Michael Eric Dyson.

“Pretty much everyone I respect in media and politics” warned him not to appear on the show, but he did and writes in today’s Washington Times that he had the time of his life. Maher and Dyson worked hard to rough him up, but he left knowing he won the rigged bout “simply by showing up.”

The payoff was immediate. After finishing the shoot, “I felt like I had gone 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and Roberto Duran. But when I got back to my dressing room, my BlackBerry was filling with messages from people I’ve never met, many of whom disagree with my politics but were compelled to praise my willingness to enter the lion’s den.” …”

Conservatives need to embrace the media and popular culture

Michael van der Galie

“…You can read my latest post for Big Hollywoodhere. The subject of the post is the speech Andrew Breitbart recently gave in Washington D.C., in which he tried to explain to fellow conservatives that they have to embrace the media and popular culture in general if they want to make a comeback.

Both are currently dominated by liberals. This has had and continues to have a major impact on American society and, therefore, on politics. Breitbart rightfully argues that conservatives will have to copy the media strategy liberals have and attempt to dominate the media and popular culture. …”

cnn – lou dobbs – insurance mandates

President Obama’s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than $250,000 a Year

Obama Goes Toe-To-Toe With Stephanopoulos On “Tax Increases”

President Obama lies again big time in breaking his promise not to increase taxes in any form on those earning less than $250,000!

Both the proposed mandatory health insurance tax and the cap and trade energy tax are new taxes on those making less than $250,000.

If either bill is passed– Obama lied and the economy died.

President Obama conspired with the large insurance and drug companies to force or coerce individuals and businesses that do not presently have health care insurance to purchase it, so-called mandatory health insurance coverage.

Both the insurance and drug companies benefit for the simple reason the Federal Government is forcing individual to purchase a product from these companies that millions of Americans currently elect not to purchase namely– an expensive health insurance plan.

The insurance companies know that it is primarily the young worker, under 30 years old, who elects not to purchase health care insurance.

The two reason the young do not purchase such insurance is affordability and they believe that young people usually do not have large medical bills because they are healthy.

The young elect to self-insure.

If they need medical treatment they will pay for it out of their own pockets.

The insurance companies also know that the largest health care claims are for the very old or very young (premature babies).

By forcing the young to purchase a product, health care insurance, the insurance companies will be using these premiums to subsidize or off-set the high health insurance claims or costs of the very old and very young.

Also, the Federal Government’s Medicare program for those over age 65 would also benefit by being able to cost shift even more unreimbursed claims to those with a private insurance plan.

This is the real problem that President Obama does not mention.

Medicare is in big financial trouble as the baby boom generation starts to be eligible for Medicare in 2011.

The Real Fiscal Cancer that will Bankrupt the United States

Obama’s speech INTERPRETED CORRECTLY – wilson was right! Obama lies!

Medicare pays 20-30% less than the full bill, forcing doctors and hospitals to cost shift unreimbursed claims to thsoe with private insurance.

Cost Shifting in Health Care

Government caused the uninsured

President Obama and the large insurance companies are attempting to broaden the health insurance base or risk pool

The result is young and low to middle income Americans are forced to subsidize old and higher income Americans.

This is immoral and a rip-off!

Part 6: 5/8/09 John Stossel’s “You Can’t Even Talk About It”

Low deductible and low co-pay plans using community ratings are by far the most expensive group health insurance plans and this is exactly what the large insurance companies and the President are pushing!

Community rating requires health insurance companies and providers to offer health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons without medical underwriting (health related questions), regardless of their health status (pre-existing conditions).

Give me a break!

John Stossel: Insurance Makes Healthcare Far More Expensive

ABC 20/20 Takes on Health Care Reform

First, it is not the purpose or role of government to tell the American people how to spend their hard earned income by forcing them to purchase a product or service.

While most Americans want to have quality health care insurance coverage, the American consumer and not the Federal Government nor an insurance company should decide how their money is best spent.

Food, clothing, rent or mortage payments, electricity, telephone, transportation, employment and educational expenses are a much higher priority than health insurance for most individuals.

Millions of Americans do not purchase health insurance for many reasons including, they cannot afford it, they are between jobs, or they have other expenses that they consider more pressing and important.

The American people will not stand for any law that requires them to purchase a Government mandated product or service and if they do not purchase the product or service, face a tax and fine.

How dare they.

This is simply un-American and unconstitutional.

Mark Levin on “Hannity” – President Obama “Lied”

Obama wants to destroy our healthcare: Mark Levin on Hannity

Second, when the Federal Government dictates that you must pay or spend your own money to purchase a product you do not want it is certainly a tax.

Suggest you read the bill Mr. President or better yet write you own proposed bill.

Saying or defining something as not a tax does not mean mandatory premiums for health insurance is not a tax.

If you elect not to purchase an acceptable government qualified health insurance plan, you will be taxed and fined by the IRS.

Furthermore, if you do not have health insurance and are hit by a bus, the hospital, doctors and other health care providers that treat you fully expect to be paid and will try to collect what is owed.

Medical bills are not forgiven.

This is strawman or distraction from the major sources of cost shifting.

By far the biggest cost shifting is for Medicare, Medicaid and uninsured illegal aliens.

The Federal Govenment is the problem for not paying their medical bills and enforcing the immigration laws

Forcing the American people to buy a Federal Government Qualified Health Insurance Plan is a tax just like the cap and trade energy tax is a tax:

Cap and Trade: It’s an Energy Tax

WH Won’t Rule Out Tax Increase On Middle-Class

President Obama is selling out his supporters especially young and black voters who believed his promise not to increase taxes.

The insurance and drug companies will benefit most if this bill is passed and so will Barack Obama and the Democratic Party with campaign contributions from the executives of these companies.

Who pays the bill?

The American people.

This is exactly what Barack Obama did in Chicago when he assisted real estate developers such as Tony Rezko in obtaining loans and legislation that benefited them.

Obama And Rezko Relationship

Obama’s Rezko real estate deal

Barack Obama did the same in the Senate by supporting ethanol subsidies to enrich large corporate farmers and ADM.

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

Obama and Ethanol

Now President Obama promotes both the cap and trade energy tax and alternative energy such as wind turbines that directly benefits such companies as General Electric:

Face it folks, Barack Obama has been bought and paid for by the unions (SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA), large insurance and drug companies, and large banks and financial institutions, lawyers (especially trial lawyers), and big media.

They call it pay for play–the Chicago way.

You contribute to my campaign and I will make sure you are paid-off in subsidies, tax breaks, regulations, and legislation that benefits your business.

Barack Obama sold out to the special interests decades ago, get used to it, this President is corrupt to the core, a habitual liar–a political hack.

The American people and small businesses are being shafted by President Obama.

The American people want affordable, portable, fair, and quality individual health insurance plans.

For many Americans that means a high deductible plan complemented by a health savings account.

Obama Care is just the opposite–a low deductible and low-co-payment community rated group plan.

Many American individuals and small businesses simply cannot afford to purchase such an expensive plan that does meet their needs:

Obama Care

Health Savings Accounts

The American people do not want a compulsory health insurance plan with mandatory coverages designed by Federal Government Czars and the big insurance companies that sell employer-based plans and could care less about individual affordable and portable health insurance for the self-employed and small business who create the majority of jobs.

Furthermore, the American people do not want illegal aliens working here illegally covered by health insurance nor amnesty for illegal aliens.

Notice how amnesty for illegals aliens is not mentioned by the President nor for that matter how medical treatment for illegal aliens is seriously impacting health care cost for hospitals and doctors.

How about enforcing the immigration laws and tort reform to reduce health care cost and insurance premiums?

How much of that 5% premium increase the President mentions is due to illegal aliens be treated in US hospitals where they pay nothing for their care?

How much of the 5% premium increase the President mentions is due to lawsuits resulting in high malpractice insurance premiums and defensive medicine?

Obama: Illegals Won’t Be Covered Under My Plan. So, We’ll Just Legalize The 12 Million Undocumented.

Not only does President Obama lie big time but he betrays the oath of office he took “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”:

Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital

Michelle Malkin: Illegal immigrants will overwhelm ObamaCare

Obama on CNN Responds To Mitch McConnell

SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

Looks like President Obama is going for both amnesty and health care for illegal aliens working in the United States today.

The weasel words are comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship–code words for amnesty for illegal aliens and free or highly subsidized health care in exhange for voting for the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party candidates.

The Chicago way–pay for play–is alive and well in the White House and Congress.

Unfortunatley for the American people, the U.S. official unemployment rate will be 10% in October with over 15,000,000 American searching for a full time job.

The U.S. real unemploymnet rate will be 17% in October with over 25,000,000 Americans searching for a full time job.

During 1933, the worse year of the Great Depression, there were about 13,000,000 Americans searching for a full time job.

By October nearly twice that number of Americans will be searching for full time jobs.

So what is the President of the United States proposing to do to the self-employed and small and medium size business owners of America that create nearly 100% of the new jobs?

Impose new taxes in the health care insurance and cap and trade energy tax bills and increase taxes again in 2011 by letting the former President Bush’s lower tax rates expire.

Unbelieveable.

The Impact of Mandatory Health Care Coverage on Small Businesses

Obama Is Trying to Ruin America More with Universal Health Care

The economic illiteracy of this dilettante President borders on reckless idiocy.

Another explanation is the President is deliberating following a Cloward-Piven crisis strategy of overwhelming Federal, State and local governments ability to pay for entitlement and welfare programs.

Glenn Beck ACORN Cloward-Piven

The Cloward-Piven Strategy (AKA the “Crisis Strategy”)

Cloward Piven Strategy

The success of such a strategy would destroy jobs, wreck the US economy, and kill the American Dream.

If either or both of the above bills passes Congress, President Obama will have succeeded.

Only the elections of 2010 and 2012 would reverse and stop the damage done.

The Obama Depression arrives.

The Second American Revolution spreads throughout the country.

The American people have figured out that the President is a habitual liar.

The American people no longer trust President Obama.

Is Barack Obama a Liar…

GOP principles with Thaddeus McCotter

Background Articles and Videos

Why Is Healthcare So Expensive?

Health Care Reform – Why Do We Need Health Reform?

Should the Government Mandate Health Insurance?

Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional

Why an individual mandate could be struck down by the courts.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY

“…Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an “excise tax” of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate “regulatory” taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care. …”

Not so fast on the health insurance mandates

By Karl Manheim and Jamie Court

“…A health insurance mandate is essentially a forced contract, in which one party (the insurer) gets to set the terms. You must buy their policies, even if you prefer to self-insure, rely on alternative medicine or obtain treatment outside of the system. In constitutional terms, such mandates may constitute a violation of due process or a “taking of property.”

Requiring Person A to give money to Person B is a “taking,” whether or not something of value is given in return. Let’s say the state required every resident to buy milk, on the rationale that milk consumption benefits public health. That’s either a constitutionally forbidden taking (of money) or a violation of due process.

These constitutional rights aren’t absolute. Given a compelling enough reason, government can interfere with your person and property. It can require, for instance, that your child be vaccinated before attending public school. But there is usually an opt-out, such as private or home schooling. We are not aware of any opt-outs for most people in the mandatory health insurance plans being discussed.

There are far more sensible and constitutional ways to provide health coverage. Government-funded insurance (such as Medicare or single-payer insurance) or regulation and tax subsidies to encourage voluntary participation (as in Obama’s plan) are both more efficient in containing costs and avoid the slippery slope of unconstitutional mandates.

Before the candidates get too far in their health insurance proposals, it would be good to consider the constitutional and policy implications of requiring Americans to buy private goods from private companies….”

Weasel Words

“…Weasel words is an informal term for words and phrases that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication. Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:

vague generalizations
use of the passive voice
non sequitur statements
use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing “firing staff” with “streamlining the workforce”)

“…The expression weasel word derives from the egg-eating habits of weasels.[1]An egg that a weasel has sucked will look intact to the casual observer, while actually being empty. Similarly, words or claims that turn out to be empty upon analysis are known as “weasel words”. The expression first appeared in Stewart Chaplin’s short story Stained Glass Political Platform (published in 1900 in The Century Magazine),[2] in which they were referred to as “words that suck the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks the egg and leaves the shell.”

In the political sphere, this type of language is used to “spin” or alter the public’s perception of an issue. In 1916, Theodore Roosevelt argued that “one of our defects as a nation is a tendency to use …’weasel words’; when one ‘weasel word’ is used … after another there is nothing left.”[3]

“Consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down…an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange…”

~President Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

“..But they leave out the fact that for most people it is their employer, not the insurance companies, that pays for any bad health outcomes. The firm does so out of the company’s own pocket. The companies do what is called “self-insure” or “self-fund” their plans, and that occurs for around 55 percent of employees according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality with the Department of Health and Human Services.

Take Maine, Senator Snowe’s state, as an example. There, the two largest insurance companies appear to control 88 percent of the market. And Well Point Inc. makes up most of that, with 78 percent. But what isn’t made clear is that these numbers only deal with privately insured patients who are insured by insurance companies. Slightly over half of the privately insured in Maine (52.1 percent) get their insurance through their employers who “self-insure.” These companies merely hire other companies to handle the paper work. Well Point Inc. thus really provides primary or “full” insurance to 78 percent of the market not covered by self-insurers. Doing the math gives 78 percent x (1 – 52.1%) = 37.1 percent of the total market in Maine. The second largest insurance company has only 4.8 percent of the total market. …”

Lott’s Numbers: Obama’s Top 2 Most Outrageous Health Care Myths

It turns out that claims about too little competition are based on a misinterpretation of the data and that non-profit insurers are so abundant that the largest insurer in virtually every state is a non-profit.

“…Yet, in 29 of the 43 states that data are available for in the American Medical Association report mentioned earlier, the dominant company in the “full” insurance market is a non-profit company. In state after state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield hold the largest market share. On average, the largest non-profit hold over half of the “full” market share in those 29 states. Why add another non-profit operation to the mix?

Getting rid of profits wouldn’t make costs go down – they would go up, because without profits there would no longer be the same incentive to hold down costs. Profits are the reward that firms get for figuring out what customers want. Earl Grinols, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Baylor University and author of a new book from Cambridge University Press entitled “Health Care for Us All,” argues that “profit maximization combined with competition is the only reliable way that we know to keep costs low.”

Non-profits obtain the success they do largely because of tax and regulatory advantages offered to them by the government (e.g., somewhat higher federal taxes on for-profit corporations).
So much of the debate focuses on the supposed heavy concentration in the insurance industry and the supposed greed, costs, and inefficiencies of for-profit companies. Private insurance medical insurance is neither very concentrated nor largely for-profit. …”

Community Rating

“…Community rating is a concept usually associated with health insurance, which requires health insurance providers to offer health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons without medical underwriting, regardless of their health status.

Pure community rating prohibits insurance rate variations based on demographic characteristics such as age or gender, whereas adjusted or modified community rating allows insurance rate variations based on demographic characteristics such as age or gender.

Community rating, as a basis for premium calculation, is fundamentally different from the usual method of determining insurance premiums, i.e. risk rating. In a risk rated insurance market, an insurer calculates the premium payable by a potential policy holder in order to enter into an insurance contract on the basis of various factors particular to that individual, such as the risk of a claims occurring, and the value of any such a claims during the term of an insurance policy. In a community rated market, the insurer may not calculate premium on the basis of the risk factors attaching to the particular person wishing to effect an insurance contract, but rather the risk factors applying to all persons within the market as a whole. Thus, in a community rated market, the insurer evaluates the risk factors of market population, and not those of any one person when calculating premiums.[1]

The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery

By Nancy Coppock

“…The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left’s war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel’s ominous statement, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change. …”

Cloward-Piven Strategy

“…Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. …”

One woman Michelle Obama will not mention

By Michelle Malkin

“…Yes, First Lady Michelle Obama is now aggressively crusading for her husband’s health care takeover under the guise of championing woman who have been “crushed” by the system.

One woman Mrs. Obama won’t be spotlighting?

The mother of Dontae Adams.

***

I’m re-printing my June 19, 2009 blog post and column again here in its entirety to get the message out about Michelle Obama’s role in creating a health care horror story she won’t be publicizing. I repeat: What have you done for Dontae Adams, lately, Mr. and Mrs. O?

***

June 19, 2009

I blogged about Michelle Obama’s role in creating a patient-dumping scheme for the University of Chicago Medical Center back in March. With her husband and the Democrats unleashing health care horror story anecdotes to gin up public fear and build support for the beleaguered Obamacare plan, my syndicated column today revisits the kind of “reform” the Obamas and their Chicago cronies champion — and who benefits.

Here’s a challenge to the ABC News Obamacare infomercial producers. I dare you to ask President Obama this question: What have you done for Dontae Adams, lately? …”

Look who’s behind the “Big Insurance” protests

By Michelle Malkin

***

“…Tomorrow in Minnesota, Obama-bots will gather for a “Big Insurance: We’re Sick of It” demonstration against UnitedHealthcare. Who’s behind it? The announcement is here. It’s a Who’s Who of left-wing astroturfers:

No word yet on whether they’ll be protesting at the fund-raiser for Nancy Pelosi in Washington, D.C. being hosted by UnitedHealth care lobbyist Steve Elmendorf — or at the Washington, D.C. law and lobbying offices of Alston & Bird, where Obama health care advisor Tom Daschle consults for UnitedHealth.

Olympic-sized boondoggle: What Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama are up to

By Michelle Malkin

Jarrett’s slum lord record in Chicago is highly relevant to her current and ongoing pursuit of Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid — which will cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion and bring an untold windfall to developers and contractors.

From my chapter on Jarrett’s role as president and CEO of The Habitat Company, which the Boston Globe probed in a rare, non-fluffy look at the Obama’s consigliere: …”

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (1 of 6)

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (2 of 6)

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (3 of 6)

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (4 of 6)

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (5 of 6)

Richard Norton Smith on Woodrow Wilson (6 of 6)

Background Articles and Vdeos

Richard Norton Smith

“…Richard Norton Smith (born Leominster, Massachusetts in 1953- ) is an American speechwriter and historian. “There’s no excuse for a dull book, a dull museum, or a dull speech,” says Richard Norton Smith. “Especially when dealing with history – the most fascinating subject I know.” His unstuffy approach to the past, combined with his trademark humor, flavors the commentary he provides regularly on C-SPAN and The Newshour With Jim Lehrer.

Born in Leominster, Massachusetts in 1953, Mr. Smith graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1975 with a degree in government. Following graduation he worked as a White House intern and as a free lance writer for The Washington Post. After being employed as a speech writer for Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke, he went to work for Senator Bob Dole, with whom he has collaborated on numerous projects over the years.

Mr. Smith’s first major book, Thomas E. Dewey and His Times, was a finalist for the 1983 Pulitzer Prize. He has also written An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover (1984), The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation (1986) and Patriarch: George Washington and the New American Nation (1993). In June 1997, Houghton Mifflin published Mr. Smith’s The Colonel: The Life and Legend of Robert R. McCormick, which received the prestigious Goldsmith Prize awarded by Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School, and has been described by Hilton Kramer as “the best book ever written about the press.” Currently Mr. Smith is at work on a biography of Nelson Rockefeller, a massive project involving thousands of pages of newly available documents, as well as more than 150 interviews with Rockefeller associates.

Between 1987 and 2001, Mr. Smith served as Director of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum in West Branch, Iowa; the Dwight D. Eisenhower Center in Abilene, Kansas; the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and the Reagan Center for Public Affairs in Simi Valley, California; and the Gerald R. Ford Museum and Library in Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor, Michigan respectively.

At each of the libraries he contributed to significantly higher public visitation through major temporary exhibits, imaginative public programs, and educational outreach efforts. In addition to expanding and renovating the Hoover Library, Mr. Smith overhauled the permanent exhibitions at Hoover, Reagan and Ford. In 1990 he organized the Eisenhower Centennial on behalf of the National Archives.

In 2001 Mr. Smith became director of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas, where he supervised construction of the Institute’s landmark home and launched several high profile programs. In October, 2003 he was appointed Founding Director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, in Springfield, Illinois. In two and a half years he turned around the troubled project, which has since received international acclaim for its innovative approach to history. During this same period, Mr. Smith also served as Executive Director of a revitalized Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation, which doubled its endowment under his leadership.

On February 12, 2009, Mr. Smith was a featured speaker at the Congressional Bicameral Celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s 200th Birthday, held at the U.S. Capitol. He concluded his speech with the line, “Long before he was the President against whom all others are measured, Abraham Lincoln was the American we might all aspire to be.”

Mr. Smith is presently a Scholar in Residence at George Mason University in suburban Washington, D.C. …”

Woodrow Wilson

“..Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Ph.D. (December 28, 1856–February 3, 1924)[1] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912. To date he is the only President to hold a doctorate (Ph.D.) degree aside from those who have held JDs, and the only President to serve in a political office in New Jersey before election to the Presidency.

In his first term, Wilson supported a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[2] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America’s first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. In a move that garnered a backlash from civil rights groups, and is still criticized today, Wilson supported imposing segregation in many federally-funded agencies,[3][4] which involved firing black workers from numerous posts.[5]

Narrowly re-elected in 1916, Wilson’s second term centered on World War I. He based his re-election campaign around the slogan “he kept us out of the war,” but U.S. neutrality would be short-lived. When German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sent a message to Mexico offering to return Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to them if they would ally with Germany in the event of war, and began unrestricted submarine warfare, Wilson wrote several admonishing notes to Germany, and, finally in April 1917, asked Congress to declare war. He focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving the waging of the war primarily in the hands of the military establishment. On the home front, he began the United States’ first effective draft in 1917, raised billions in war funding through Liberty Bonds, set up the War Industries Board, promoted labor union growth, supervised agriculture and food production through the Lever Act, took over control of the railroads, enacted the first federal drug prohibition, and suppressed anti-war movements. National women’s suffrage was also achieved under Wilson’s presidency.

In the late stages of the war, Wilson took personal control of negotiations with Germany, including the armistice. He issued his Fourteen Points, his view of a post-war world that could avoid another terrible conflict. He went to Paris in 1919 to create the League of Nations and shape the Treaty of Versailles, with special attention on creating new nations out of defunct empires. Largely for his efforts to form the League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S. joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. Wilson’s idealistic internationalism, now referred to as “Wilsonianism”, which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for “idealists” to emulate and “realists” to reject ever since.

In Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, Messiah refers to a future King of Israel from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of united tribes of Israel[1] and herald the Messianic Age[2]. In Standard Hebrew, The Messiah is often referred to as מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ (in the Tiberian vocalization pronounced Méleḵ haMMāšîªḥ), literally meaning “the Anointed King.”

Christians believe that prophecies in the Hebrew Bible refer to a spiritual savior, and believe Jesus to be that Messiah (Christ). In the (Greek) Septuagint version of the Old Testament, khristos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיַח (Mašíaḥ,), meaning “anointed.” [3]

In Islam, Jesus (Isa) is also called the Messiah (Masih)[4], but like in Judaism he is not considered to be the Son of God in a literal sense.

The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek translates all thirty-nine instances of the word messiah as Christos. The New Testament records the Greek transliteration Μεσσίας, Messias, twice, in John1:41 and 4:25. …”

God complex

“…The French Revolution may well, in the opinion of some, illustrate the destructiveness of arrogant reforms attributable to god complexes. The purported god-like intention of intellectuals to reinvent the world, and in particular the retroactively claimed god complex of Napoleon Bonaparte, may have been in some opinions the catalyst for the twenty years of war that ensued. A collective god complex, rooted in the utopianism of the French Enlightenment, is considered by some to have led to the reign of terror that afflicted all of Europe beginning in the late 18th century. …”

Cult

“Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, “cult” has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label. …”

Political Cult

“Political cult is a term used to describe some groups on what is generally considered to be the political fringe. Although the majority of groups to which the term “cult” (currently often used as a pejorative term according to some comparative religion scholars[1][2]) is sometimes applied are religious in nature, a number are non-religious and focus either on secular self-improvement[3][4][5][6] or on political action and ideology.[7]

Cult of Personality

“A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders. …”

“…Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent “guide” for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th Century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong. …”

Jim Jones’ followers enthralled by his skills as a speaker

“…CNN) — The key to understanding the tragedy that was Jonestown lies in the oratory skills of the Peoples Temple founder, Jim Jones.

With the cadence and fervor of a Baptist preacher, the charm and folksiness of a country storyteller and the zeal and fury of a maniacal dictator, Jones exhorted his followers to a fever pitch, audiotapes recovered from Jonestown reveal.

As he spoke, they applauded, shouted, cheered. One follower who survived the “revolutionary suicide” at Jonestown on November 18, 1978, said that Jones was the most dynamic speaker he had ever heard.

Like all powerful speakers, Jones’ greatest asset was his ability to determine what listeners wanted to hear and give it to them in simple language that appealed to them on an almost instinctual level.

“He was very charismatic, very charismatic,” said Leslie Wilson, who survived that fateful day in Jonestown by walking away from the settlement before the cyanide that killed more than 900 Peoples Temple members was distributed. She was one of 33 people who began the day in Jonestown and lived to tell the tale.

“He could quote scripture and turn around and preach socialism,” she said. “He appealed to anyone on any level at any time.”

Many of his followers were elderly African-Americans drawn to his cause by his soulful delivery and Pentecostal preaching style, including at times speaking in tongues. That hair-raising fervor was perhaps only overshadowed by what he said. …”

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 2

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 3

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 4

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 5

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 6

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 7

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 8

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Part 9

Background Articles and Videos

Cult

“Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, “cult” has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label. …”

Political Cult

“Political cult is a term used to describe some groups on what is generally considered to be the political fringe. Although the majority of groups to which the term “cult” (currently often used as a pejorative term according to some comparative religion scholars[1][2]) is sometimes applied are religious in nature, a number are non-religious and focus either on secular self-improvement[3][4][5][6] or on political action and ideology.[7]

Cult of Personality

“A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders. …”

“…Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent “guide” for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th Century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong. …”

“The central task of education is to implant a will and a facility for learning; it should produce not learned but learning people. The truly human society is a learning society, where grandparents, parents, and children are students together.

In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

~Eric Hoffer

Glenn Beck 20090918 Part 1/4

Glenn Beck 20090918 Part 2/4

Glenn Beck 20090918 Part 3/4

Glenn Beck 20090918 Part 4/4

New media consists of talk radio, internet blogs and web sites, and the Fox Network.

Old media consist of the print media (newspapers, magazines, journals) and the major television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC).

New media is connecting the dots on the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by Barack Obama and their attempt to replace free enterprise capitalism and a representative republic with a collectivist command and control economy and a progressive socialist state.

The progressive radical socialists are funded by unions, big business, big financial institutions, lawyers (especially trial lawyers) and very wealthy individuals such as George Soros.

President Obama would like the new media to shut-up.

A frontal assault on talk radio by reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine has been ruled out for the simple reasons tens of million of Amercans each day listen to talk radio and also vote.

Any attempt to reinsitute the Fairness Doctrine would unleash a firestorm of protest. The recent 2,000,000 plus march on Washington D.C. would be multiplied by a factor 10 to 20 all across the nation.

Instead Barack Obama will try to limit the exercise of free speech over talk radio, television and the internet by regulations drafted and implemented by Cass Sunstein, Regulatory Czar, and Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar:

Their ultimate goal is to silence the following conservative and libertarian talk radio show hosts:

Rush Limbaugh

Sean Hannity

Michael Savage

Glenn Beck

Laura Ingraham

Mark Levin

Neal Boortz

Mike Gallagher

Michael Medved

Bill Bennett

Dennis Miller

Rusty Humprehies

Rodger Hedgecock

Monica Crowley

John Gibson

There will also be an attempt to limit free speech on the internet.

Every day on talk radio both the hosts of the above radio shows as well as listeners calling in and point-out the newest daily lie of President Obama.

Conservative and libertarian blogs further amplify and document President Pinocchio’s Prevarications.

President Obama is a habitual liar that deeply resents being called one.

This is becoming a real problem for President Obama.

Once you lose the trust of those who voted for you, you seldom if ever get their trust back.

President Obama has already lost the majority of older and independent voters.

Soon he he lose the majority of young voters under thirty.

Once it becomes widely known among those under thirty that Obama’s so-called health reform will require or force them to purchase a mandatory health insurance plan, he lose the young voters as well.

Currently it is Americans under thirty that elect not to purchase a health insurance plan, even when they can afford it.

The young have relatively fewer medical claims.

The Federal Government and insurance companies need to pay for the cost of treating older enrollees in health insurance plans both Medicare and private insurance by forcing the young to purchase health insurance.

President Obama has sold-out to the unions, large health insurance and drug companies and the trial lawyers.

Obama has been bought and paid for by the special interests–live with it kool aid drinkers–he is just a hack politician–no change or hope here!

In the next four days President Obama will be doing a media blitz on all the major networks except Fox to promote his so-called health care “reforms”.

Unfortunately for Obama the majority of the American people are not buying his rhetoric or lies about the need for compulsory health insurance plans with coverages designed and mandated by the Federal Government with the assistance of large insurance and drug companies and unions with a public option that would lead over time to a single payer system.

Within twenty-four hours the new media will be pointing out Obama’s new lies and that the cost of the “reforms” will exceed over 250,000,000,000 dollars per year once it is fully implemented.

The old media or the progressive radical socialist choir will be singing their praises of Obama.

The cult of personality needs true believers.

New media will be connecting the dots between Obama, the unions, big business, and the big insurance and drug companies all demanding that a health insurance bill be passed now.

The American people will revolt when the Federal Government tells them how they must spend their hard earned income namely on a compulsory health insurance plan with mandated coverages.

President Obama does not believe in consumer sovereignty–he is a true believer in creating dependency on the Federal government with entitlement programs and subsidies.

Glenn Beck will continue to connect the dots as will the new media on the plans and programs of the progressive radical socialist led by President Obama.

The pump and dumb drive-by media or what Glenn calls the fringe media and Rush now call state media will continue to ignore, insult and try to silence their competition.

Old media will increasingly have fewer and fewer readers, viewers, and listeners.

Nancy Pelosi should fear violence from the left for it was Jim Jones, a charistmatic speaker and preacher of Marxist liberation theology that ordered his followers to drink poisoned kool aid.

Most of the kool aid drinkers were poor uneducated blacks.

Jonestown: Massacre News Reel

Mind Control Cults

Who attended a Marxist black liberation theology church for twenty with another charistmatic preacher name Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

The American people are not about to drink President Obama’s kool aid of so-called health insurance “reform”.

Follow the money Glenn and always ask the question, “who benefits the most?”

Their are no co-incidences.

Connect the dots.

“The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an ax.”

~Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind, aph. 104 (1955)

Background Articles and Videos

New Media

“… New media is a term meant to encompass the emergence of digital, computerized, or networked information and communication technologies in the later part of the 20th century.

Most technologies described as “new media” are digital, often having characteristics of being manipulatable, networkable, dense, compressible, and impartial.[1]

Jeff Jones Activist

“…Jeff Jones (born 23 February 1947) is an environmental activist and consultant in Upstate New York. He was a national officer in Students for a Democratic Society, a founding member of Weatherman, and a leader of the Weather Underground.

“…Jeff Jones had felt as early as 1975 that the underground had run its course and that it was time to consider surfacing, but supported those who chose to remain there. He essentially believed that the time for armed acts was over. [5] However, Jones would not surface until late Oct. 1981 when he was unexpectedly caught up in a police sweep of individuals suspected of participating in the deadly robbery of an armored truck. A SWAT team arrested Jones and Eleanor Raskin, and allowed a friend to take custody of their four-year-old son. [1] In Dec. 1981, a week before the couples’ sentencing, they were married legally. At sentencing Jones received probation and community service, while the charges against his wife were dismissed. [1]

In the years after he gained his full freedom, Jones has worked as a reporter and editor covering New York State politics and policy. He was a communications director for ten years at Environmental Advocates of New York. He now heads up his own consulting firm called Jeff Jones Strategies that specializes in media expertise, writing and campaign strategies that help grassroots and progressive groups to achieve their goals. [8] Jones is also working on the board of the financial arm of Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), a group that works closely with the new SDS. [9] He lives in Albany, New York with his wife and has two sons.[1] Jones finally traveled to Vietnam in 1986. …”

Jeff Jones Strategies for Good Causes

Jim Jones

“…James Warren “Jim” Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, which is best known for the November 18, 1978 death of more than 900 Temple members in Jonestown, Guyana along with the deaths of nine other people at a nearby airstrip in Georgetown.

Jones was born in Indiana and started the Temple in that state in the 1950s. Jones and the Temple later moved to California, and both gained notoriety with the move of the Temple’s headquarters to San Francisco in the mid-1970s.

The greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001, the tragedy at Guyana also ranks among the largest mass suicides in history (although some consider it, instead, a mass murder; see below). One of those who died at the nearby airstrip was Leo Ryan, who became the only Congressman murdered in the line of duty in the history of the United States. …”

George Moscone

Talkers Magazine

Fairness Doctrine

“…The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.

In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2] …”

“…

Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[19] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” [20] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[21] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:

“

Senator Durbin’s press secretary says that Durbin has ‘no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view’ — that the American people were served well under the doctrine — ‘and it’s all been blown out of proportion.’[22]

”

On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'”, the Speaker replied “Yes.” [23]

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

“

I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[24]

”

On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.

“

I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[25]

”

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine:

“

I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.

”

When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied:

“

I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.[26]

”

A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, “…we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.” Later in response to Press’s assertion that “…they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another,” Senator Harkin responded, “Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.” [27]

Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:

“

Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.

”

Clinton cited the “blatant drumbeat” against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn’t reflect economic reality. …”

“Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, “cult” has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees,[1] but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[2] For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label. …”

Political Cult

“Political cult is a term used to describe some groups on what is generally considered to be the political fringe. Although the majority of groups to which the term “cult” (currently often used as a pejorative term according to some comparative religion scholars[1][2]) is sometimes applied are religious in nature, a number are non-religious and focus either on secular self-improvement[3][4][5][6] or on political action and ideology.[7]

Cult of Personality

“A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders. …”

“…Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent “guide” for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th Century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong. …”

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of purchasers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use the this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. [1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically choices to buy a good or service. Furthermore,the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence — or even the ubiquity — of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public”. …”

The Legacy of Eric Hoffer

by Thomas Sowell

“…You need only read one of his classics like The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements to realize that you are seeing the work of an intellectual giant.

Having spent several years in blindness when most other children were in school, Hoffer could only do manual labor after he recovered his sight, but was determined to educate himself. He began by looking for a big book with small print to take with him as he set out on a job as a migratory farm worker.

The book that turned out to fill this bill — based on size and words — was the essays of Montaigne. Over the years, he read many landmark books, including Hitler’s Mein Kampf, even though Hoffer was Jewish. If ever there was a walking advertisement for the Great Books approach to education, it was Eric Hoffer. …”

“…Some of Hoffer’s books are collections of short, sharp insights, while others — The True Believer, The Ordeal of Change, and The Temper of Our Times, for example — offer more extended discussions of particular issues.

Although Eric Hoffer was perhaps at his zenith during the 1960s, he was completely at odds with the pious cant and slippery evasions of that rhetoric-ridden decade, whose tragic consequences are still with us today.

When a black man declared his “rage,” Eric Hoffer shot back: “Mister, it is easy to be full of rage. It is not easy to go to work and build something.” For this, he was accused of “racism” for not rolling over and playing dead at the sound of one of the buzzwords of the times — and, unfortunately, of our times as well.

Hoffer was convinced that the black leadership was taking the wrong approach, if they wanted to advance the people in whose name they spoke. Only achievement would win the respect of the larger society and — more important — their own self-respect. And no one else can give you achievement. …”

Eric Hoffer

“…Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American social writer and philosopher. He produced ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983 by President of the United States Ronald Reagan. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen[1], although Hoffer believed that his book The Ordeal of Change was his finest work. [2] In 2001, the Eric Hoffer Award was established in his honor with permission granted by the Eric Hoffer Estate in 2005. …”

SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

Obama on single payer health insurance

The Public Plan Deception – It’s Not About Choice

DeMint Discusses Health Care and Creating Jobs With Cavuto

The American people do not want to be compelled or forced to buy a health insurance plan designed by a Federal Government czar and bureaucrats with the assistance of the large health insurance companies.

The American people do not want the public option or a single payer system where the Federal Government has a monopoly on health care–socialized medicine.

The American people do not want to pay for health care plans that cover abortions and illegal aliens.

The American people do not want illegal aliens to be given amnesty so that they can qualify for a health care plan.

The American people do not want massive deficit spending in the trillions of dollars.

The American people do want the the Nowhere Man’s Nowhere Health Bill.

He’s as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don’t worry,
Take your time, don’t hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lends you a hand!

Doesn’t have a point of view,
Knows not where he’s going to,
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man please listen,
you don’t know what your missing
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command!

He’s a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody!

Beatles – Nowhere man – Live in Munich 1966

Background Articles and Videos

Obama’s Dog of a Health Care Message

Health Reform and the Polls
Obama’s biggest obstacle is the 68% of voters who rate their health coverage as good

“…The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health-insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. That number comes from polling conducted this past weekend of 1,000 likely voters. Most of these voters approach the health-care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.

Adding to President Barack Obama’s challenge as he sells health-care reform to the public is the fact that most voters are skeptical about the government’s ability to do anything well. While the president says his plan will reduce costs, 53% believe it will have the opposite effect.

There’s also the reality that 74% of voters rate the quality of care they now receive as good or excellent. And 50% fear that if Congress passes health-care reform, it will lead to a decline in the quality of that care.

Advocates of health-care reform on Capitol Hill are up against something bigger than voters’ reactions to a variety of specific proposals. Our polling in February found that by a 2-1 margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress can always make matters worse. That’s one reason 78% believe passage of the current congressional health-care proposals is likely to mean higher taxes for the middle class.

Health Care Reform

Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%

“…Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s.

The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has remained above 40% and the Strongly Favor totals have been in the mid-20s. This suggests public opinion is hardening when it comes to the plan that is currently working its way through Congress. …”

By Sammy Benoit

“…Having spent much of the past thirty years of my life in the advertising industry, the flaws of President Obama’s health care message are apparent and massive. Most people outside the ad business will tell you that commercials try to beat you over the head to make you buy what you don’t need or want. In truth advertising that doesn’t address the public’s needs or wants does not work. On top of that, if a consumer keeps being exposed to a message that does not meet a need, they begin to tune it out quickly; it’s called wear-out. Finally if the message keeps changing, consumers get suspicious.

Sound Familiar? That’s because almost since his inauguration the POTUS has been beating us over the head with a heath care message that does not address the needs or wants of the majority of American voters. His heath care effort is designed to make sure everyone has heath care, pre-existing conditions are covered and there is a public option to ensure greater competition to keep prices low.

Voters don’t have a perceived need for the president’s health care plan. Polls show that between 85-90% of voters are satisfied with their present health care coverage. Covering everybody is a noble effort, but voters are feeling the effects of a deep recession and are worried about the federal deficit. Just like a commercial for a new Mercedes Benz, most see universal coverage as something nice to have, but maybe another time. …”

Cap and Trade is a Massive Energy Tax

Cap and Trade Insanity

What is buried in the Cap and Trade Bill?

Gingrich to Waxman: Don’t Punish Americans with Energy Taxes

Small and medium size businesses create nearly 100% of the new jobs in a growing economy.

If either President Obama’s Cap and Trade Energy Tax or his compulsory health insurance plan with mandatory coverages were passed, the impact on the U.S. economy will be a complete disaster.

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

Small and medium size businesses will be hit with massive tax increases.

Consumers will be hit with price increases for all goods and services that use energy for electricity, heating and transportation.

The result will be more layoffs and a prolonged recession that will not end until 2011 at the earliest.

The official unemployment rate could easily hit 15% with over 22,000,000 Americans seeking a full time job.

The real unemployment rate could easily hit 22% with over 30,000,000 Americans seeking a full time job.

During 1933, the worse year of the Great Depression, there were approxomately 13,000,000 Americans looking for a job.

Today over 15,000,000 Americans are looking for work–2,000,000 more that in the Great Depression.

The Obama Depression arrives and wrecks the US economy if either the cap and trade energy tax or the compulsory health insurance bills are passed.

Obama lied and the economy died.

Background Articles and Videos

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign.

“…The Congressional Budget Office — Mr. Orszag’s former roost — estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).

But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels — particularly coal, which generates most power in the Midwest, Southern and Plains states. It’s no coincidence that the liberals most invested in cap and trade — Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey — come from California or the Northeast.

Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked. …”

Fr. Corapi on Notre Dame Scandal

Eyes to See and Ears to Hear: Reading and Heeding the Signs of the Times with Fr. John Corapi

Background Articles and Videos

Father John Corapi

Father John Corapi

“…Father John Anthony Corapi (born 20 May 1947) is an American Catholic priest. He has both television and radio ministries, and has conducted speaking tours in North America.[1]

Corapi was born in Hudson, New York. In high school he was a football player and considered a career in professional sports.[citation needed] He joined the US Army desiring to become a Green Beret, but suffered a shoulder injury during the Special Forces Qualification Course, thus medically disqualified.[2] After being largely disappointed he couldn’t he couldn’t serve in the Vietnam War, especially when others were being forced to,[citation needed] he served the army in Heidelberg, Germany as a clerk and typist during that same era.

After his discharge, he received a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Pace University in 1973. Corapi became a financial advisor to Tropicana in Las Vegas, then moved to Los Angeles and became a real estate agent.[1] At this point, Corapi’s life began to descend into the underworld of drugs. He began to attend parties involving illegal drug use and group sexual activity.[citation needed] At the height of his “success”, as measured in conventional terms, Corapi lived in a house in Malibu, drove a Ferrari, and owned a personal yacht.[citation needed] After being introduced to cocaine, however, his success dwindled, sometimes spending $10,000 per week on drugs. He also had several (lucky) encounters with police, including a time where after a high speed police chase, he was stopped by a roadblock with enough cocaine in his trunk to get him up to forty years in jail.[citation needed] He would later refer to his drug use of this time as an encounter with a demon, and his lifestyle eventually led to a mental breakdown and homelessness following a stay at a VA psychiatric hospital.[3]

At this point, Corapi spent three years wandering the streets as a vagrant.[citation needed] His mother sent him a prayer card with the Hail Mary prayer and asked him to pray it once a day. He eventually changed his life, escaping homelessness and illicit sex and drugs.[3] At this point, his mother sent him a one-way airline ticket back to New York. He then lived with his mother for some time, coming to God on June 24, 1984.[4] He then entered the seminary, and on 26 May 1990, was ordained a deacon, by the Bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas.[citation needed]

On 26 May 1991, Pope John Paul II ordained Corapi to the priesthood. Corapi served as a parish priest in Hudson, New York and Robstown, Texas.[citation needed] He was the Director of Catholic Faith Formation and of the Bishop’s Project on the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Sacramento, California. Corapi is now a member of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity. He has received a Masters degree in Sacred Scripture from Holy Apostles Seminary, Cromwell, Connecticut, and a Doctorate in Dogmatic Theology from the University of Navarre in Pamplona, Spain.[citation needed]

In 2005, Corapi resolved litigation in connection with what he claimed was unnecessary heart surgery.[5] Due to serious health problems suffered in 2008, Corapi has curtailed his public appearances and for the time being broadcasts his message worldwide solely from his studio in Montana.[citation needed]

He is the author of a series of sermons called “The Darkness Will Not Prevail”.[6]

Russian helps build nuclear reactor in Iran

Moscow has commercial interests in Iran

Europe’s Missile Shield – Russia

Russia, Poland and U.S. Strategy – STRATFOR Insights

Russia Opposes U.S. Missiles

Hillary Clinton on missile defense systems in Poland, Czech Republic

Obama: Missile Defense & Nuclear Weapons

Obama wants nukes cut by 80% – report

33 Minutes Trailer :: LONG PROMO (inHD)

“…33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age is a one-hour documentary produced by The Heritage Foundation that tells the story of the very real threat foreign enemies pose to every one us. The truth is brutal – no matter where on Earth a missile is launched from it would take 33 Minutes or less to hit the U.S. target it was programmed to destroy.

Nuclear proliferation around the world, and the threat of a ballistic missile attack of some kind is mounting as more and more countries obtain nuclear technology. The ongoing threat toward America is also accelerating due to the fact that there are many rogue nations and terrorist organizations who either have or are seeking ballistic missiles and nuclear technology.

The challenges of protecting America and its citizens for President Obama’s administration are great. Featuring rare footage and in-depth interviews with leading experts in the field, 33 Minutes is the definitive documentary exposing the untold vulnerability we all face and the action plan necessary to revive a strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world’s security. …”

33 Minutes Protecting America in the Missile Age

Iran has been at war with the United States for over thirty years using mostly proxies to do their fighting.

President Obama announced today that the proposed missile defense program to defend Europe from a nuclear missile attack from Iran will be cancelled for 10 missiles based in Poland and a radar facility base in the Czech republic.

This will perceived as weakness by the enemies of the United States and a complete victory of Putin in Russia.

Fully expect Israel to take out both Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities and missiles sites in the near future.

Joe Biden was right. Barack Obama was tested in the foreign policy arena and failed the test.

Russia: First to test Obama?

Vice-President Biden emphasized that he was heavily involved in this decision.

Another reason to question the wisdom of the decision.

President Reagan won the cold war.

President Obama is losing the Iranian war.

U.S. foreign policy is in disarray.

Meanwhile, President Obama tries to sell the American people on his proposed compulsory public option insurance plan that will lead to a Federal Government monopoly single payer system–socialized medicine–by appearing all over the television networks this Sunday.

The vast majority of the American people are satified with their health insurance.

Those Americans who have lost their jobs do not want to be forced to buy a government health insurance plan when they need the money to pay for food, rent, electricity, gas and other expenses.

The American people want to know where are the new jobs, the green jobs, you promised?

The official unemployment rate will hit 10% this month with over 15,000,000 unemployed Americans seeking a job.

The actual unemployment rate wiil hit 17% with over 25,000,000 Americans seeking a full time job.

During the worse year of the Great Depression the number of unemployed was less than 13,000,000.

The Bush recession has ended and the Obama Depressions has started.

Where are the jobs Mr. President?

President Obama is quickly becoming not only the most inexperienced and ignorant President in modern times, but also the most incompetent and arrogant.

Hope is neither an economic policy nor national defense strategy.

God save the United States of America and the republic for which it stands.

Kate Smith – God Bless America

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

~Winston Churchill

Background Articles and Videos

Munich of the Skies
Ken Blackwell

“…President Obama has chosen this day — the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland — to announce the abandonment of U.S.-backed missile defense for Eastern Europe.

It’s worth looking back at how we got here. After the 1989 breakup of the Soviet Empire — that “evil empire” Ronald Reagan had done so much to end-the newly free states of Central and Eastern Europe naturally looked to the United States, and to a lesser extent, to their Western European brethren, to safeguard their long sought freedom. Poland and the Czech Republic were among the first to apply for membership in NATO.

The U.S., it seemed, would extend it’s nuclear umbrella of protection over these newly independent states. In these free states, streets and squares were being named for Ronald Reagan — after the joyous people first pulled down statues of Lenin.

We should remember not just Munich, and not just the largely peaceful revolution of 1989. We should remember that Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939, seventy years ago.

Less than a month earlier, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin had concluded the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with Adolf Hitler. That pact gave Hitler a free hand to invade Poland from the West. It also secretly approved Stalin’s plan to invade Poland from the East.

Young Karol Wojtyla — later to become Pope John Paul II — fled eastward when the Germans invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, igniting World War II. Karol and his ailing father sought refuge from Nazis so brutal, so inhuman that they shot Poles who failed to step into the streets to let their German overlords pass them on the sidewalks.

But when, on September 17, 1939, Karol and his father learned that the Soviets had invaded Poland from the East, they returned to their little town. They were more willing to face death and enslavement under the Nazis than to take their chances under the Russian domination. …”

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans

“…The Obama administration will scrap the controversial missile defense shield program in Eastern Europe, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN Thursday.

The U.S. has been testing the ability of ground-based interceptor missiles to hit long-range ballistic missiles.

The comment followed similar statements from officials in Poland and the Czech Republic — where key elements of the system were to be located — but was the first confirmation from an American official.

Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.

But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran — a key concern for the United States — was not a threat.

“I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat,” he told CNN’s Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.

“The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America,” he said.

Biden said he is “deeply” involved in the review of the missile defense program. ..”

Obama to Drop Poland, Czech Missile Defense Proposal

By Douglas Lytle and Lenka Ponikelska

“…U.S. President Barack Obama will abandon plans championed by his predecessor George W. Bush to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said.

Obama phoned Fischer last night and also informed the Polish government, the premier told reporters in Prague. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher met with Polish officials representing Prime Minister Donald Tusk this morning and will arrive in Prague this afternoon.

“Shortly after midnight Barack Obama called me to announce that his government is withdrawing plans to place a missile shield in the Czech Republic,” Fischer said. “We were aware of the possibility and were also aware of the fact that they were analyzing the plan.”

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Obama had called Fischer while declining to say what was discussed. Obama will make a statement on missile defense at 10:15 a.m. in Washington, according to a White House statement. …”

US Missile Defense Complex in Poland

“…The US missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), is part of the Ballistic Missile Defense European Capability. It is planned to be placed in Redzikowo, Słupsk, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with a US narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system in the Brdy, Czech Republic. It consists of up to 10 silo-based interceptors, a two-stage version of the existing three-stage Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV), with a closing speed of about 7 km/s.

According to the United States administration the system is intended to protect against future missiles from Iran, such as the alleged Shahab-6, although in November 2007 the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been halted since fall 2003[1]. It has also been pointed out that Central Europe is way beyond the range of any missile that Iran currently has.[2]

Russia strongly opposes the system. As an alternative it has proposed sharing the Qabala Radar in Azerbaijan, which Russia leases, but for the US this is not an acceptable substitute.[3] One of the most major difficulties from the Russian perspective is that the associated radar installation, which is to be based in the Czech Republic, is going to be able to collect information about all movements in Russian airspace up to the Urals mountains,[citation needed] which is all the European part of Russia.

The missile shield has received some local opposition in the area, including a protest in March 2008, when an estimated 300 protesters marched on the proposed site of the missile base[4].

33 Minutes

“…Last August, Poland and the U.S. came to an agreement. The U.S would deploy 10 missile interceptors to the country. The U.S. and the Czech Republic reached a radar installation agreement in July. Part of President George Bush’s “third site” effort to boost Central Europe’s defenses against rogue states like Iran, the missile shield agreements were a source of contention between the U.S. and Russia. The former Soviet Union claimed, rather disingenuously, that both bases would pose a threat to its national security.

Bush stood firm against Russia’s accusations and tried to assure leaders that nothing could be further from the truth. The shields would strengthen transatlantic security against the evolving Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat, allowing us to extend our own security umbrella to our European allies.

After Barack Obama was elected, those who supported the shields knew it was only a matter of time that the new president would not only scale back defense, but likely renege on our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. Months ago, he offered Russia a “secret” deal: We’d cancel our plans in exchange for Russia’s help with Iran. Russia refused to issue tougher sanctions against Iran, but oddly enough, Obama abandoned the bases anyway.

Russia got what it wanted without offering anything in return. Putin must be overjoyed. …”

Panel Plus: 9/20

Nancy Pelosi worries about Protests violence

Glenn Beck 20090916 Part 1/4

Glenn Beck 20090916 Part 2/4

Glenn Beck 20090916 Part 3/4

Glenn Beck 20090916 Part 4/4

Liberation Theology

If you disagree with the policies and programs of the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by President Obama you will be called a racist and even violence prone.

Excuse me but it was Barack Obama’s SEIU supporters that attacked a black conservative!

Black conservative attacked by violent SEIU thugs

Also there were no arrests at the Washington D.C. march last Saturday where over 2,000,000 from all over the country came to protest the irresponsible bailouts, spending and massive deficits of this Congress.

1.5 to 2 million march on Washington D.C Tea Party protest rally September 12 2009

Rather than addressing the arguments made, name calling is what passes for intelligent discussion.

It is an easy way to change the subject and put you on defensive if you let them.

A short response to those who call you racist is that without white voters, President Obama would still be in the Senate in Illinois.

If you continue to insult white people and call them racist, President Obama will be a one term president.

Please make my day and continue to call those who disagree with you racist.

After about the third time you are called a racist, you know the person calling you one is the racist.

This is what a black racist sounds like:

Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology

Part 1: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words

Part 2: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words

Part 3: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words

Obama & The Black Liberation Theology Of The Church He Attended / Video / Reverend Wright / James Cone

Most Americans, blacks and whites, would have found another church after listening to one of Rev. Wright’s sermons.

For political reasons, Barack Obama needed a church to further his community organizing and political agenda and held views Obama believed in as well.

Barach Obama freely chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church and went there every Sunday for twenty years.

Who is the racist?

Who seeks out radicals, bombers, terrorists, criminals, black nationalists, Marxists, communists, and socialists as close friends and allies?

Yes, Barack Obama.

Any one who listens to President Obama closely, knows he habitually lies.

Shelby Steele is correct that Barack Obama is a bargainer but was wrong that he would not be elected:

Shelby Steele: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race.

Once the American people recognize that Obama is a bargainer and is lying to them, they will not do business or vote for him.

Guess what, the American people have figured this out and no longer trust President Obama.

Is Barack Obama a Liar…

ACORN, Racism and the Mainstream Media…

Background Articles and Videos

You’re A Racist! The Ultimate Emotional Intimidation
By Lloyd Marcus

“…I am on the email list of a dear black friend of 20 years. He is a minister, writer and professor. He has mentored and advised me with great wisdom on numerous occasions. With me being a black conservative Republican and he a Democrat, we avoid talking politics. Since the election of Obama, my friend will talk about nothing else. He is in Baltimore. I’m in Florida. Every time he calls me, he turns the conversation into trashing all who oppose Obama’s agenda. Thank God for caller ID.

I received a mass email from my friend in which he vilifies the Christian community for not chastising ministers who speak against Obama and for not attacking Sarah Palin. He said the Republicans used Palin as their “attack dog against Obama.” He said watching a McCain/Palin rally was like watching a KKK lynch mob and he personally heard the crowds yelling, “kill him,” referring to Obama. Folks, my dear friend is a liar.

In 2008, I traveled the U.S. attending forty rallies on the national “Stop Obama Tour” with Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Not once, did I hear any violent or racist comments. Seeing through his smooth speeches and charisma, people were simply terrified of what was to come with an Obama victory. …”

“…Many sincere white Americans thought by electing a black president America could never again be characterized as a “racist country.” Shamefully, this characterless administration betrayed Obama voters by exploiting race, using it as a tool to implement their far left agenda. If you don’t agree with everything Obama wants, you must be a racist. Rather than the election of America’s first black president bringing the races together, Obama’s administration is tearing us apart. They will continue to play the tired, old and tattered geriatric “race card” as long as it is effective.

Folks, please, please, please do not fall for it. The stakes are far too high. Boldly speak the truth and stand up for what you know in your hearts to be right for America. Obama wants to redistribute wealth, punish achievers, decide who lives or dies and control as much of our lives as possible. It is just that simple. His must be stopped. Do not allow yourselves to be manipulated and intimidated for fear of being called “racist.” …”

12% Say Most Opponents of Obama Health Care Plan Are Racist

“…In recent days, several Democrats have suggested that racism is a factor. The most prominent to make that accusation is former President Jimmy Carter.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion that most of the opponents are racist. So do 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party. However, just 39% of Democrats share that view. Twenty-two percent (22%) of those in the president’s party say that most of the opposition to his plan comes from racists, and another 39% are not sure. …”

Congressman Paul Ryan – Townhall Meeting

Congressman Paul Ryan – Opening Comments – Pt. 2

Congressman Paul Ryan – Opening Comments – Pt. 3

Question 5

Question 7 Cost Containment

Question 9 Socialized Medicine

single payor and 18,000 people are dying

Will Abortion Be Covered and SHould My Son Become A Doctor?

Is Your Plan Bipartisan and Isn’t Medicare Socialized Medicine

Background Articles and Videos

Paul Ryan

“…Paul D. Ryan, Jr. (born January 29, 1970) is an American politician and Congressman from Wisconsin. He is a member of the Republican Party, and represents Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district (map) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ryan, born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, is a fifth-generation Wisconsin native currently serving his sixth term in Congress.

Ryan is a graduate of Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville and earned a degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio where he was a member of Delta Tau Delta Fraternity. He has worked in the private sector as an economic analyst and previously served as president of his own consulting firm.

Ryan and his wife Janna live in Janesville, Wisconsin with their children, Liza, Charlie and Sam.

Ryan worked as an aide to U.S. Senator Bob Kasten beginning in 1992 and as legislative director for Sam Brownback of Kansas from 1995 to 1997. He worked as a speechwriter to “drug czar” William Bennett and to Jack Kemp during his run for the vice presidency.

He was first elected to the House in 1998 after two-term incumbent Mark Neumann made an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. Ryan defeated 35-year-old beer distributor Brian Morello in the Republican primary and Democrat Lydia Spottswood in the general election by a 57-42 margin.

He defeated Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. In the general election on November 4, 2008, Ryan defeated Marge Krupp, the Democratic candidate. …”

Paul Ryan

“…My plan, The Patients’ Choice Act, ensures universal, affordable health care for all Americans. Under The Patients’ Choice Act, patients and doctors would control their health care decisions – not insurance companies and federal government bureaucrats. Equally important, my proposal does not raise taxes or increase government spending, but uses the money we currently spend more effectively. …”